Is this the death of Wedding Photography?

[ed_lemko]

<p>All I can say is, in the past while watching these boards-- poor Uncle Bob-- he's getting an almost worse beating than Tiger Woods... Ten years ago, Uncle Bob was a nice guy....</p>

[mechanic]

<p><strong>My primary question is about what I perceive as a complete breakdown of client-photographer relationships in the wedding photo business. What has happened over the past ten years?</strong><br>

Live in a larger city and watch the so-called professional photogapher's "For Rent Signs and Forclosure signs" where the photograoher was. They knew it all when they bought an entry level DSLR Kit and were going to strike it rich?<br>

Did they even consider location, equipment, a course in business management let alone a course in photography.<br>

Was it mabe a friend that suggested he/she go into business because the friend liked their work? "So what if it doesn't turn out, I've got Elements 5 and I can fix it, I just got it." When asked if they had taken any courses on editing "Only an ????? would throw money awy an a course like that--its easy"<br>

The old saying "Garbage input equalls garbage output" and I firmly believe that.<br>

<em>The Photographer that knows the limitation of their self and their equipment KNOWS how to shoot a wedding if that is what they are into. They very likely have business training and people management skills and don't take a hissy attack over a client that according to others in the fied say "DEMANDS" more. It won't happen with the actual PROFESSIONAL simply because these items are expained prior to signing a contact that quite often is drawn up by their lawyer. You will sedom see a DSLR Kit being used unless it is a pro series such as a Nikon D700</em><br>

<em>The photographer in the italic text will always be busy</em> The other one won't be as lucky--it is all about respecting LIMITATIONS.<br>

Just my Personal Thoughts,<br>

Gary</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Which bit is the "half"? Is it "issue", because it is second? Is it "non" because it is the adjectival portion of the Compound Noun? or is it "non" simply because it is the smaller of the two . . .?<br>

<br>

We have to keep within the rules, or set precedent, John . . . <br>

Merry Christmas. (and to Art too - bah! Humbug).<br>

<br>

<em><strong>"People are less polite to each other."</strong></em> - True, levity helps mostly always.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[adamczyk]

<p>No, it is not dead. I am a fairly new photographer, did few weddings here, several engagements there, head shots, some family photography (to be honest I mostly love going to my local park and photograph anything from trees, to playground equipment, sand,,,what ever usually non-people photography...) and I did charge money for most of my sessions so far. So far I have not had any issues with the client photographer relationship. I try to keep it professional and move on. I am tired however of hearing "professional"photographers whining about the "so called professional photographers" with the $400 DSLR with $200 blah hlah and etc...and complain that they give a bad name to the field of photography. Get real. The only difference between a "professional" wedding photographer and say a "weekend photographer" is that the weekend photographer has another job during the week. How busy is your schedule from Mon to Thurs? Perhaps you are busy doing the marketing thing, or perhaps you are putting the albums together. But really what else is different. Wedding are traditionally done during the weekend with few cultural group exceptions. <br>

Some of the most experienced photographers here in Photo.net always say that the equipment is only a tool, and you are only as good as the ability to use those tools. I hear a lot people complaining about how things are different now in the digital age from the film age, where a photographer was "respected" for his craft. A lot those older (I mean experience not age) professionals are really upset that the 18 year old punks who graduate from high school, pick up a camera and become "wedding photographer" over night. I think the problem is that most of the "professional" photographers are really mad that they can't process 1000 photos with Photoshop as quickly as the 18 year old punks can, but that is not their fault, they grow up in the age of the Photoshop, downloaded an illegal copy of it when they were 12 years old and since they had nothing better to do then "play with the computer" for the next 6 years they are now the Scott Colby (I think that is how you spell his name) of the Photoshop. I you are a man (not bashing women here) how many times in the last decade did you show your wife how to program the VCR? How many? How many times did she come back and said " Honey you play with that "thing" I just don't get it! Do you get the Photoshop thing??? I hope so, because, and the brides are now just few years older then their newly found on the Craigslist photographer so their perspective on photography, graphics, and blah, blah, blah is very much the same.<br>

Anyhow, wedding photography is not dead, it has perhaps changed into a new form. People hate change, people fear change, people will do everything to combat change, only to find out that they should have listen to that little voice in their head 10-15 years ago and ask them selves: What the hell is that digital thing that everyone is talking about????? Maybe I should take few minutes and read on it. <br>

And it is also a fact that younger people learn a bit faster then older people (there is a reason why the saying :you can't teach an old dog new tricks) so forgive them for their ability to quickly browse through the instruction manuals, website, books, and magazines and actually remember all those thing they have read and apply them to photography. If professional photography was such a big deal 10-15 years ago you should have kept all the tricks to yourselves and not publish them everywhere for every one to see.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Tom--I don't see anyone whining on this thread. The flood of new photographers ill prepared to take on the business of wedding photography is a fact. There have always been these photographers, it is just easier now to jump in. I hardly think accusing 'older' photographers of being slow is polite. There are plenty of 'older' photographers who have embraced new technology and marketing with no whining.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >"The only difference between a "professional" wedding photographer and say a "weekend photographer" is that the weekend photographer has another job during the week."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nope, that's wrong. There are many differences – generalizations are very dangerous IMO.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Pop survey - for the last two years I did only one Wedding each two weeks or so . . . and that was contracted to a Studio. I have a full time "Other Job". But I have about 1500 Weddings under my belt and previously managed and partly owned three Studios . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >There are many permutations of "Weekend Photographers" vs. "Full Time Professional Photographers” I am only one of those many DIFFERENT examples.</p>

<p ><br />And there are varying skill and experiences levels between both groups - it is not as simple as you paste it; nor is it as simple as the "us and them" / "Old and Young" argument you proffer.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You might think that: <em >“the problem is that most of the "professional" photographers are really mad that they can't process 1000 photos with Photoshop as quickly as the 18 year old punks can" . . . </em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em > </em>but IMO, that is very narrow thinking and only seeks to elicit equally simple and emotional responses such as: <em >"well we grew upon with film and we now how to expose and control WB at the source, so we don't need Photoshop as a crutch"</em>. . . an then the discussion spirals downward into oblivion.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If one wants to debate, then I encourage one to debate the real matters, and not post glancing and all encompassing generalizations that are emotionally based and have little evidence or grounding in the real business world.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Merry Christmas,</p>

<p > <br>

WW</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>Oh, I guess the end is near... Also, count me in on Alan's cynical side.</p>

[nishnishant]

Well there is considerably more money involved these days. Even entry level wedding photographers charge upwards of 1500 for a 3 hour wedding. Add another 4 hours of post processing and that's basically 1500 bucks for 7 hours work (over 200/hr). That's much higher than what a decent software engineer can hope to make doing consulting work. Not saying that software engineering is a better skill to photography or anything, but just using that to put the hourly rate in perspective. So when a client pays that kind of money (1500 is just entry level, most established photographers probably charge two or three times that much) and then gets lower quality photos on DVD, or is told that all photos will be watermarked, then he/she gets upset. This would not had happened had he/she spent some time understanding the contract clearly and explicitly adding wording that says the photographer would give them high-res (minimum resolution specified) images, un-watermarked, by a certain date. This way both sides know what the client and photographer are entitled to.

[katrin_d.]

<p><em>I think the problem is that most of the "professional" photographers are really mad that they can't process 1000 photos with Photoshop as quickly as the 18 year old punks can, but that is not their fault, they grow up in the age of the Photoshop, downloaded an illegal copy of it when they were 12 years old and since they had nothing better to do then "play with the computer" for the next 6 years they are now the Scott Colby (I think that is how you spell his name) of the Photoshop.</em><br>

<br /> Photoshop is just another tool. And a crappy photo will always be a crappy photo. You can't successfully make your living "putting lipstick on a pig". Being a photographer means knowing your lighting, knowing your subjects, what you call the "marketing thing" etc. It takes more than picking up a camera and pushing a button.</p><br>

<p><em>People hate change, people fear change, people will do everything to combat change</em></p><br>

<p>The photographers I know embrace change. You're making a very general assumption that is not backed up by facts (unless you have statistics on this issue with regards to wedding photographers).<em> </em> Yes, some people will resist change but others will be more than happy and excited to learn about new technologies.</p><br>

<p><em>I you are a man (not bashing women here) how many times in the last decade did you show your wife how to program the VCR? How many? How many times did she come back and said " Honey you play with that "thing" I just don't get it!</em><br>

Amusing sentiment but what does it have to do with this discussion?<br /> You are most certainly not doing any new photographers any service as the tone of your posts is exactly the cocky "here I come, move over and stop whining" attitude so many "older" (although I would call them more experienced) photographers resent. Kicking a football around on the weekends doesn't make one a professional football player either. Same for the field of photography.<em><br /> </em></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Nish: you don't <em>really </em>think that 3 hours at the wedding and 4 hours in post production is all that is being paid for with that $1500, do you? Equipment. Insurance. Non-billable advertising, administrative, accounting, and off-season time <em>all</em> has to be represented in that hourly rate. Not to mention the taxes that are going to come out of it. And vehicle costs. And, and, and. At $1500 for a wedding, the photographer that's being <em>honest</em> about what their costs really are will recognize that they're actually making closer to minimum wage, and taking on a lot of risk to do so.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>...that's basically 1500 bucks for 7 hours work ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nish, you haven't allowed for the time spent preparing the deliverables for the client. Or do you really think the job ends when you walk away at the end of the night?</p>

<p>An average wedding for me requires somewhere in the region of 40 hours work without album, and 50 hours with album. I charge a great deal more than $1500 for a wedding, but I can tell you the fee is set to take account of everything included in the process. The few hours spent at the wedding are inconsequential. And don't forget overhead as well. It's a business, so everything has to be paid for.</p>

<p> </p>

[nishnishant]

 

<p>Hey Matt, </p>

<p>Yes, I am aware of all the "extra" and "hidden" costs, but typically those are not counted for when you mention the hourly wage. It's the same for a software developer too (to continue my analogy). He/she has to constantly upgrade his computers/software/technology, get new monitors, adapt to new hardware like multi touch monitors and devices, and then there's the abominably high cost of enterprise quality development software (like Visual Studio, SQL server, an MSDN subscription etc.). But you cannot tell a client that your infrastructure and equipment costs are high, and so you want to charge more.</p>

<p> I suspect it's the same with photography. The average client will not understand (or even try to) the costs involved in becoming a good photographer. There's no use telling them that you have a new expensive D3S which made the extreme low light shots inside the wedding limo possible because they don't care. Note that it is absolutely not my feeling that photographers over-charge, but to a "typical" client who has no idea of these things, that's what they see. They see the $200/hour and nothing beyond it.</p>

 

[nishnishant]

<p>Neil,</p>

<p>I was using an entry level photographer as an example (3 hours of shooting + 4 hours of post processing). High-end photographers like you don't really have this client perception problem (where they think you are charging too much). Because your clients are typically those that want a minimum guarantee on quality and are prepared to pay for it.</p>

[ken_yee]

<p>You can really do all the postprocessing in 4hrs??? I thought the average was more 2-3 days for a one full day wedding...<br></p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>"...that's basically 1500 bucks for 7 hours work ..."</p>

<p>See? That's the reason unhappy customers are unhappy.</p>

<p>You estimate 7 hours work. Several weeks later you haven't finished yet. The customer starts demanding results (given the expectations you set), since you are well beyond your original estimate, you realize your mistake, try to compensate, customer demands start to escalate, and so on... Sounds too much like an IT project to me...</p>

<p>Set realistic expectations with your customers. And make sure they understand what they are paying for. If they think it's expensive and opt out, you've just saved yourself a lot of trouble.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>These wedding posts are indeed awful - the bad feelings, the personality clashes, the misunderstandings, the problems with the relatives, the contract arguments - they are all palpable. But to a bystander like me they are also very entertaining. Photo.net should publish a collection of the best (worst)!</p>

[ejder]

<p>In my fairly short (less than 2 years) time as a wedding photographer, I really haven't had any such bad experiences as you mention. I've shot over 60-70 brides under many different circumstances and at venues ranging in quality from the lowest (back of a bar converted to a reception hall) to some of the highest locally (Ritz Carlton, Four Seasons), but without any personal issues.</p>

<p>It's common knowledge that positive experiences are less often reported than negative ones, and negatives stick better in memory most of the time.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I think the digital revolution has had a lot to do with it. When I first started doing weddings, the photographer retained possession of the negatives. The bride and groom were given a wedding album with the photos (the real kind) that they picked out. The family and friends paid for their photos.</p>

<p>But that was when the overwhelming number of them did not have the means to do anything with the negatives anyway. Now in the digital world, you can give them a CD and they can go print their own.</p>

<p>I still do things the old fashioned way. Even if I shoot digital, I do not give out CD's, I sell prints and albums. I am sure it loses me some jobs, but I still take the time to sit down with the couple and make it as stress and worry free an environment as possible. Any wedding is stressful enough on everyone. The wedding photogapher need not be an additional stressor. Before the wedding, both parties will be made aware or exactly what will and what will not be included. This puts to rest any misconceptions. If there is a question or a dispute, I tell them to look at the contract, and remind them that I went over it item by item with them. When they signed it, that made it legal and binding on both sides. I have to deliver what I promised, but nothing additional, unless I want to. And I usually don't do freebies.</p>

[phil_derosier]

<p>Lots of things are changing for the worse in weddings ... photography is but one. Heck, after 25 years of wedding photography, I can count on one hand how many wedding cakes I felt were really tasty! But I digress ...</p>

<p>I entered the business because at first, it was a labor of love: and it showed in the service and product I delivered. Never a fan of high ISOs, I was particularly proud of my ability to light up even the dimmest sanctuary with my Speedotron light kits. Film was king.</p>

<p>But as I grew older in years, I guess I began to tire of lugging all that equipment around ... dashing from house to church to reception hall ... and then collapsing at home, drained, after an eight or ten hour day. I worked solo.</p>

<p>I spent a few years in the digital realm, but it was clear that things have changed ... the cache of wedding photography is gone. Film meant that people were willing to wait. Digital now means that people are incurably impatient, unyielding, obnoxious and intolerant. And did I mention people have become cheap?</p>

<p>To the extent that we now live in an era of the McWeddings, yes: classic wedding photography is dead. Heck ... maybe I'll open up a chain of wedding photo-kiosks right nect to those red DVD dispensers ...</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>For every problem situation you read about here, there's thousands of weddings where it works out perfectly well.</p>

[mechanic]

<p>Tom<br>

<em>"I am tired however of hearing "professional"photographers whining about the "so called professional photographers" with the $400 DSLR with $200 blah hlah and etc...and complain that they give a bad name to the field of photography. Get real. The only difference between a "professional" wedding photographer and say a "weekend photographer" is that the weekend photographer has another job during the week." as per your reply.</em><br>

That is like saying there is no difference between a doctor that does heart transplants and one that works in a MORGUE as both are capable of removing the heart from somebody--I will take my chances with the doctor that does the transplants as there is a far greater chance that I will live to see another year(s) than the one in the morgue--will they even bury the heart with the corpse but this I guarantee you--you will not live another mili-second.<br>

As for the "weekend photographer" they simply make the potentcial client aware that you are lucky if you get what one paid for but at the same time drives more work to the actual professional that makes his living in this field of business.<br>

<a href="http://www.professionalphotography101.com/">http://www.professionalphotography101.com/</a> Am I or any other professional afraid of the week ender taking business from us--not a chance in h---- of that. <br>

As per your statement, <em>we are afraid of Changes </em> WRONG as most professionals belong to groups such as Professional Photographers Of America <a href="http://www.ppa.com/findaphotographer/degrees.php">http://www.ppa.com/findaphotographer/degrees.php</a> There are all kinds of seminars and ongoing courses plus most if not all States have a separate branch. The actual professional including those self tought thrive on competition.<br>

One again these are just my thoughts,<br>

Garry<br>

<em></em><br>

You say we are afraid of change--Wrong, we wait for the next challenge and welcome it.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>I read Rick Dorn's opening essay as a humorous column in a newspaper, as a comical cartoon strip, as a laugh, just like those wonderful moments at the end of 60 Minutes with our dearly departed Andy Rooney.<br>

The rest of you, dare I say, take the article and yourselves too seriously.<br>

The gem of the thread: ".... <strong>"Bridezilla" syndrome</strong> ...."<br>

Thank you Rick, you've made my day.<br>

Cheers, Kevin</p>

[kparratt]

<p>How about a photography business specializing in <strong>Divorce Photography</strong> . !!</p>

[brian_carey_photography]

<p>No doubt in my mind this is over reacting, these cases are rare but unfortunately still happen. I worked for several years as a professional wedding photographer many years ago and all but one was unpleasant. I moved changed jobs and couldn't continue wedding photographer because I traveled a lot!<br>

A few months ago I decided to have another go at it and I expect that things haven't changed much in this regard. Good thing is I'm a much more knowledgeable and better photographer and of course more mature to handle "unpleasant people". </p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em><strong>"Yes, I am aware of all the "extra" and "hidden" costs, but typically those are not counted for when you mention the hourly wage."</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nish - Both for the Consultant Software Engineer and for the Freelance Photographer - let’s be precise with the terminology, because it is important in this debate.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The (<strong ><em >Average) "Hourly Wage"</em></strong> is something employees have. It is <em><strong>vastly different</strong></em> to the Hourly RATE which is charged out to the Client by a Sole Business or Consultant - you begin to describe the differentiation with your "hidden extras" comment . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >BUT: to be clear if I charge a client $5,000 for a Wedding Package and shoot for 8 hours and post produce for 7 hours my WAGE in NOT $300 per hour . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WAGE is the incorrect term. </p>

<p ></p>

<p >Using the term WAGE conjures the incorrect image in the mind of the Client and also creates a false sense of (fiscal) worth and security in the minds of many Photographers and also business owners in other disciplines </p>

<p > </p>

<p >My WAGE is what I take out from my business each week: My <em >Gross Wage</em> is what the Business pays me and my <em >Net Wage</em> is what remains after paying Personal Income Tax (where applicable) and any other compulsory Levies or Dues and this <em >Net Wage</em> is the money I live on, from day to day . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >(I have found that), in many situations WAGES is something which many Photographers don’t even take regularly, or at all - because there is not enough <strong ><em >regular</em></strong> work or not enough <strong ><em >regular</em></strong> TURNOVER (money coming into the business) to allow them so to do, or simply beacsue they do not have their business arranged such that they have “Wages” . . . many just “live on the money left over” at the end of the week, fortnight or month.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also (when correctly analysed), many Photographers find that their WAGE is way below the "Average Wage", that is to say that if they used their skill set as an Employee, their wage would be greater than it is running their own business; and in some cases the Wage of an Self-Employed person falls below social benefits / poverty line, for their particular geographical location.</p>

<p > <br>

WW</p>