Hey, at least SOME brides have their priorities straight!

[Matt Laur]

<p>Just a little recession-related wedding read for those photographers that despair of ever hearing something like this:<br /><br /><a href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0902/gallery.wedding_jitters/index.html">http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0902/gallery.wedding_jitters/index.html</a><br /><br />The gist of it: the bride preferred to give up a fancy cake designer's services (and had cupcakes, instead!) rather than give up the professional photographer's services and suffer mere snapshots.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Matt, there are a couple of those brides if you read further into the sories.</p>

<p>thanks for sharing the encouraging news.</p>

<p>Best, D.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>I bet on the cake-designer equivalent of photo.net (maybe cake.net) the cakers are complaining about this very thing. 2 sides of the coin :-)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Well, sure, but that cake designer didn't have to run out this year and but the new Kitchen Aid M3X Mk II 24-MegaSprinkle Mixer that can shoot high-resolution frosting designs in a nearly dark kitchen, either. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Oh, and if you Google for wedding cake designer message boards, they're out there. But I seem to be finding mostly discussions of Frosting Filigree, Little Plastic Bride and Groom suppliers, The Ethics Of Buttermilk, and the apparently contentious issue of Dowels vs. Straws (which seems to be the Cake Designer version of film vs. digital).</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>The only person who can`t be left out is the preacher. Maybe that`s the business to be in.</p>

[l_e]

<p>Hey Matt<br>

You didn't have to run out and buy the photographic equivalent of "the new Kitchen Aid M3X Mk II 24-MegaSprinkle Mixer". If you did then it was your choice, and I hope that one purchase didn't put you on the brink of disaster.<br>

And I thought the priority of the day was getting married.</p>

 

[sherijohnson]

<p>I appreciated the article as it was from real people. For me it works to my advantage that I happen to just be starting out during this period in time and that was not planned.</p>

[Mike Howard]

<blockquote>

<p>...and the apparently contentious issue of Dowels vs. Straws</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is freakin hilarious!</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>The DJ at a wedding I shot today and I were just having a variant of this conversation -</p>

<p>Our conclusion: $5,000 a day photographers and DJ's are looking to book dates, $1,000 a day ones are booking but only 2 - 4 weeks out. Cheaper ones are booked through the end of the year.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[l_e]

<p>David<br>

Your conclusion might be valid for your area and your market, but certainly not for all wedding photographers. We start at $5,500 and are booked solid for 2009, with several already booked for 2010. Not trying to be contrarian, or a braggart, just pointing out that there is potential to succeed and thrive despite the common negative outlook.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Where's your business?</p>

[roseberry guitars]

<p>I did one of those kind of weddings this year! They didn't have a lot of money so they gave up the cake and a few other things so that they could have a "pro" photographer, a <strong><em>very </em></strong>classy dress for her and an imported "Real" Scottish kilt for him. It was a very nice wedding.</p>

<p>AND... I was a pastry chef for a good 25 years of my life. So, don't make fun of the Dowels vs Straws issue...a great deal of Royal Icing has been thrown in the of the battles over that, shall we say...difference in point of view. Film vs. digital...hardly!</p>

<p><strong><em>AND</em></strong>...a properly outfitted pastry kitchen to make those beautiful wedding cakes can cost the best part of $100,000. Those "Kitchen Aid M3X Mk II 24-MegaSprinkle Mixer's" ain't cheap and you cannot just have one, you gotta have a back-up. You could get yourself a pretty sweet medium format digital kit with a few extras for that kind of money.</p>

<p>Anyways, enough sillyness from me I'll try to post a shot of the cup-cakes for your "drooling" pleasure!</p>

<p> </p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Hmmm, that Kitchen Aid M3X Mk II 24-MegaSprinkle Mixer needs it's white balance touched up. :)</p>

[roseberry guitars]

<p>I was hoping nobody would notice that...not likely with this crowd! ;)</p>

[savagesax]

<p>Scot and Jim, I was laughing so hard! Good to see some humor! Times are getting hard when we have to worry about white balancing cup cakes!</p>

[l_e]

<p>Jeff - Was the question for me? It really doesn't matter where we are located because we do very few weddings in that immediate area. Most of our weddings are in the southeast with a handful scattered across the country. </p>

 

[nishnishant]

<p>@ L E</p>

<p>For someone who's a successful professional photographer why is it that you have chosen an anonymous username and do not reveal your web site or the name of the company?</p>

<p>When someone says "we charge 5 figures" or "we are booked till 2010 December" it usually carries more weight when coming from a non-anonymous source. Otherwise it can potentially end up as unconfirmed noise in an otherwise valuable thread.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Nish: It's not unusual for someone who has a long list of (potentially high profile) clients to want to have the liberty to chat online - in a relatively unguarded manner - and to not leave a giant Google-able trail behind them.<br /><br />I do participate a lot in these forums, and am not too shy with my opinions on sometimes contentious topics... but I do give some thought to how an existing or prospective customer might digest what they read here (often out of context) when doing a wee bit of Googling for my name. Of course, most searches in my case come up with web content that mis-spells another famous person's name... definitely a double edged sword!<br /><br />But I understand the appeal of relative anonymity in a setting like this. Yes, you have to give L.E. the benefit of the doubt on how authoritatively he/she speaks about business matters. But that may be a necessary part of that person's willingness to leave such a publicly viewable footprint behind them in a very competitive industry.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>Thanks - I hadn't thought of it that way. Yes, that makes sense now.</p>

[lesroll]

<p>Thankfully it didn't come down to choosing between the food and the photographer when I got married, because I'm not sure we would have made it! My wife was working as a baker and I was (am) a photo-junkie. Somehow I don't think we would have seen eye-to-eye on fondant vs. film...</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I should change my name to "K P" and remove all links to me then make up stuff.</p>

<p>ANYONE can claim anything when you are as well known as "L E"! Not. Not for a second.</p>

<p>When you see fires--houses burning down... people always say "grab the photo albums and pictures first!" No one grabs the old frozen cake out of the fridge or the decaying garter from the chest of drawers.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Ken, when I see a fire consuming my home, I hope my family are the first thoughts on my mind..</p>

<p>Then my kitchen aid MX3 Mk11 24 megasprinkler and a roll of fondant.</p>