Combating the 400.00 weddings

[mikemason]

<p>@Steve Harris:</p>

<p>It's great that you took the time to write an article like that, but I think dwelling on equipment and technical details is the wrong thing to do.</p>

<p>You're incorrect about APS-C versus full-frame cameras. Please stop spreading the full-frame FUD. There are plenty of professionals using the smaller, lighter cameras and there are APS-C bodies built ruggedly enough for professional use. There are plenty of wealthy amateurs wandering around with full-frame bodies, f/1.2 primes and f/2.8 zooms -- just check the Canon or Nikon forums for a daily post from someone who wants blow $5k on a system.</p>

<p>If your article is aimed at non-photographers the amount of technical detail will just make people's eyes glaze over. You should focus on key points. Capability of equipment is <em>likely </em>to be much better when using a professional photographer. They will have backup gear for if something goes wrong. A professional will have experience of finding the best shots and knowing when and what to shoot. Post production to make images pop. Liability insurance, etc etc. These are the points that you should emphasize; I think multiple paragraphs of gear-head stuff that only photographers will understand misses the mark.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>It's misleading to imply that full frame bodies have <strong>no</strong> advantage over APS-C sensor bodies though. Yes there are some great professional APS-C sensor bodies, but there's a reason that Nikon bowed to the pressure to produce a full frame camera. All things being equal (which they seldom are) larger sensors tend to give you lower noise and are capable of higher effective resolution. At a certain point, there are only so many pixels you can cram into any given size sensor. And a full frame, professional body with 20+ MP might not be a guarantee of your photographer's talent, but in the hands of the right person, that resolution just might give him or her some cropping options he might not have with an otherwise excellent APS-C sensor camera. So it's just as wrong to say it doesn't matter as it is to say that it's a sure sign of a professional right? It seems a reasonable point to me.</p>

[rt_jones]

<blockquote>

<p>We discuss whether raising rates is practical in the economy, and even compare products and services. That way, no matter who gets a job, everyone is on somewhat equal footing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice idea but collaborating to keep a similar pricing structure is illegal here in the U.S.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Steve H.--well done but I doubt you will get your target audience to read it. It needs to be much shorter and much more general, with the points made succinctly.</p>

<p>Stephen's last question, in the meantime, has gone unanswered. Obviously, if one has not been affected by the $500 photographers, one would not change one's marketing, but if one has, I'd like to hear the answer.</p>

<p>I have noticed a downturn because I work the middle market, but I don't compete with the $500 photographers. Most of my clients came to me as referrals, so most already know I charge more than $500. I also shoot for a local wedding studio, so between the two, I manage. I haven't changed my marketing.</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>I think this forum would be better as combating overpriced weddings IMHO</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>Also I do truly believe it is the ability of the photographer and not the price range at all!!</p>

[rvalois]

<p>Hi Joey Allen ...<br>

You wrote ... "... Also, APS-C gives extra reach you can't get from a full frame sensor without a much larger lens. For instance, the <strong>70-200 f/2.8 IS gives you 320mm at f/2.8 with IS</strong> , so you don't have any reason to carry around a 300mm lens ..."<br>

Sorry to disappoint you but a 200mm lens remains a 200mm lens whether it's on a FF camera or a crop. A FF lens on a crop body simply gives you a different FOV (Field of View). A 200mm does not physically become a 320mm lens (or whatever the crop factor is) because it's on a crop camera.<br>

Ray</p>

 

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry to disappoint you but a 200mm lens remains a 200mm lens whether it's on a FF camera or a crop. A FF lens on a crop body simply gives you a different FOV (Field of View). A 200mm does not physically become a 320mm lens (or whatever the crop factor is) because it's on a crop camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On full frame cameras, the pixels are bigger and less dense. Cropped frame cameras have more reach because the pixels are smaller and packed more tightly together. Therefore, a 200 mm lens has a greater magnifying power (and potentially more ability to resolve detail) on a 12 megapixel cropped frame than it does on a 12 megapixel full frame.</p>

<p>On the other paw, this is also the reason why full frame cameras exhibit less noise.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

 

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>In case no one's noticed, there are quite a few well-qualified and talented commercial photographers who've waved better-paying clients goodbye in this tremendous economic meltdown. Some of them would no doubt be delighted to shoot weddings and burn a disc to hand off at the end of the reception for $500 clear. Many places, that's considered pretty good money these days for an afternoon's work especially if your baby needs shoes. Shrewd brides may also be very aware of this market opportunity (It's a buyer's market for a lot of goods and services right now. Priced used medium format gear lately?)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the equipment part is overstated above. In wedding photography, people skills are the most important. Photography skills and vision are important, too, but people skills and caring about the subject are crucial. You can make a variety of equipment work for you if you have the know-how.</p>

<p>That said, a full-frame camera does work better in low light not only because of the better signal-to-noise ratio, but also because a 12 MP full-frame sensor samples the image projected by the lens at a lower spatial frequency than a corresponding 12 MP DX/APS camera, leading to higher detail contrast and better image quality especially evident at wide apertures. And almost all fast lenses (with a handful of exceptions in the major manufacturer lineups) are designed for full-frame coverage. True that corners in many wide angle images are soft but for people photography this is rarely an issue and there are lenses available which do not share this problem, it's just a question of how much money you want to spend. On the other hand if you use lenses designed for DX/APS on DX/APS typically the corner problems return, as most people are expected not to care about the corners and these are largely lenses and cameras intended for less discerning use. But if you use and are confident with elegant use of flash, certainly small sensor cameras can be used with great results in wedding photography. As for DOF, full frame users always have the option of using a higher ISO and smaller aperture to compensate for the intrinsically shallower DOF, leading to comparable image quality and DOF; whereas the small sensor user does not have comparable shallow DOF options (because the really fast lenses have low MTF wide open at high frequencies required by these sensors) but at 4x6 print size anything can work ;-)</p>

 

[rvalois]

<p>Hi Paul Thomas ...<br>

You wrote "... On full frame cameras, the pixels are bigger and less dense. Cropped frame cameras have more reach because the pixels are smaller and packed more tightly together. Therefore, a 200 mm lens has a greater magnifying power (and potentially more ability to resolve detail) on a 12 megapixel cropped frame than it does on a 12 megapixel full frame ..."<br>

I've never had that explained in that manner, it makes sense but somehow I'm not grasping that this provides "more reach".<br>

The sensor size on a FF camera is 24mm x36mm. The sensor size on a 50D is 22.3mm x 14.9mm. Looking through an EF lens, the 50D will see the center 22.3 x 14.9 mm of the 24 x 36 mm that the EF lens is capable of providing. The lens does bring you CLOSER to the subject because it's on a crop camera.<br>

Are we saying the same thing????</p>

<p>Ray</p>

<p> </p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>Equipment doesn't make a professional photographer, nor an assistant. While I have a significant investment in the tools I use, people hire me because they like my photos and trust I will do the job well, wether I show up with a Diana or a M3. I don't always use an assistant, either. </p>

<p>Just about anyone can take a few good snaps at a wedding. It's not that hard. Couples, on their day, have generally spent more time and money to make themselves look good than they ever have before. They're in a great mood. If you have any talent at all, it's easy to get some great snaps. What separates a pro from an amateur is the quantity of quality photographs a couple gets. It's not dependent on equipment or assistants, even though having good ones certainly helps. Experience definitely plays a part, too.</p>

<p>The intellectual side of the digital world is still developing. Photography is now as immediate as drawing- you take a picture and there it is on the LCD. If something is wrong, you can change it right away. As a result, it has become much easier to learn the craft. In addition, in the past 2 years cheap digital camera have really upped the bar- you can get good results from them. I think these two circumstances have worked against pros in general. No longer are they unique darkroom alchemists and everyone has a decent, inexpensive digital camera these days. Add to this the devaluation of intellectual property that has been going on in the past decade (why should you pay for music when you can download it for free?) and it only makes sense that the wedding market would go high and low with an ever- decreasing middle area.</p>

<p>I think it's as bad an idea to compete with others based on the equipment you use as it is to compete on price. It should be about the photographs you want to take.</p>

[dmcgphoto]

<p>If I may provide a more modest concept. That while there may be more $500 photographers for weddings out there, There are absolutely no clients anywhere whatsoever who, when looking for a photographer are going into it prepared to pay north of $3000,$5000, $10000, who then say.</p>

<p>"oh gee" You can do it for $500? and I can print them myself?</p>

<p>These are not the same clients, never have been, never will be.<br>

I propose that if you are losing work to a $500 photographer, that you never had that work in the first place. It's not clients being cheap, it's a budget conscious bride/groom who simply don't have the money to pay, they aren't hiding it as if by magic all the $500 photographers disappear they will suddenly cough up another 3-5 grand for their wedding.</p>

<p>What I might say is more to blame, or to be fair in part, is the inflation of the idea that a bride must have every token, every chatchkie, and every scaled down element to make it look like one of the big magazine celebrity weddings. I think as a working professional, and someone who loves taking wedding pictures, it is in our interest communally, to show people that simple is not just good, it's art of the highest order. If I may digress, when did we see the art from the Renaissance really take off? When the Bruges Brothers starting painting everyday folk doing everyday things. The public identified with that.</p>

<p>so......We should show really good work that is about people, talk to our clients, even the ones we don't ultimately sign, about how special and singular they are no matter what they surround themselves with on their wedding day, because the best pictures from their day are going to be the ones we are seeing the day's emotions pass in front of thier eyes.. IHMO<br>

Cheers<br>

daniel</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>The lens does bring you CLOSER to the subject because it's on a crop camera.</em></p>

<p>No. The closeness is determined by the distance between the photographer and the subject. The image from the small sensor camera is magnified more when the print is made (i.e. ratio of print dimension vs. sensor dimension is greater), so you can use a shorter lens for a given shot (which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're trying to do and available lenses).</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Ok then, I am dropping my price to 499 to keep in biz.</p>

<p>...and giving unadjusted jpgs straight from the camera on a CD/DVD. Great.</p>

<p>Seriously though, what it likely means is that you and I will either adjust to meet the new market, or we will fade away as we become obsolete. Talent will only get you so far in a poor economy. Even those who can afford it will begin to expect more for less eventually.</p>

<p>If enough people value what you sell to compete for your services, your price can increase. If not, well perhaps they feel they can get the same quality/quantity elsewhere for a better deal and your price will have to drop.</p>

<p>I have not adjusted my price the last two seasons, up or down. Must be that I fall in that gray area of "good, but not great". Not enough people asking that I feel I can raise prices (not that I really want to either), but enough to keep me happy with what I am booking so far.</p>

<p>In a typical year I will have booked most of what I shoot by the end of the previous year. Not this year though, more than half of my bookings to date came in the past month and I anticipate another 30% will come in the next two months (I hope). That is late for my norm, so it seems people are holding back at least on the timing.</p>

 

[george_peng1]

<p>While I'm not a wedding photographer, I get the feeling I read a form of this post every month or so. I think the reality is that the wedding market settles where it settles, so if people value the product they'll pay more than $500.</p>

<p>Of course, I think much of the problem is that people don't really understand what they're missing. When a "photograph" usually means a mugshot-like party snap from a P&S, I think people are generally conditioned not to expect much and therefore not value it much. Like many things, I suspect its a matter of education and recalibration of expectations, which is ultimately a marketing problem. That is, if you can teach the customer to value the product and see the value in the product, then you can induce them to pay for it. My sense is that this often is not the case. For example, for kicks I shot a friend of mine's 40th birthday party the other day, the guests of whom are all in the top brackets of education, income, wealth, etc., including a recent Oscar winner. But I guarantee that with a few exceptions (including the Oscar winner), most don't really value quality photographic product much more than crappy Facebook party snaps, mostly because they haven't been conditioned to. The guest of honor himself was surprised at the quality of the shots, although of course he thought it must have been because of the camera technology, rather than my use of bounce flash and a few hours of PP in Lightroom. But alas...</p>

<p>And of course the other problem is amateurs intruding in, almost fecklessly offering their services. A friend of a friend had some headshots done by a sometime photographer/something else whose shots are only OK, but her website offers her as a wedding photographer as well, despite no experience, as if it would be a fun experiment for all. I found that quite disturbing. But I guess when your core product is cheap headshots, then your target customer is not that discerning.</p>

[steve_10170]

<p>...interesting to me is the fact that these issues transcend photography. In a world that is continually becoming 'flatter' as the book said, it is happening to almost every market sector. I am a Exec. VP of Sales in ERP Software, and the issues are actually quite similar. This discussion helps all of us think more clearly about our desired clients, and that is always good for business :)</p>

[mikemason]

<p><em>It's misleading to imply that full frame bodies have <strong>no</strong> advantage over APS-C sensor bodies though.</em></p>

<p>I fully admit that full-frame sensors have advantages over crop sensor cameras, advantages that you outlined very well. I said "please stop spreading FUD" because I object to the assertion that crop sensor cameras imply someone is not a professional.</p>

<p>The way this thread has been taken over with discussion of sensor formats, field of view, compression/distance, etc, shows you just how easily us photo nerds like to get into a techie discussion. This kind of thing really has no place in trying to convince the buying public that they need a pro photographer instead of an amateur. Steve Harris put a lot of time into his article, there's some great content there, and I really just wanted to give a little nudge towards the non-camera-nerd aspects of his piece. Good editing is as important in writing as it is in photography.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Daniel - I found your post insightful and accurate. Must say I agree with everything you've said, and it reflects my understanding and experience too.</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I know of some excellent professional wedding photographers who use APS-C cameras on a regular basis (for one of those photographers it is their only format)</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>E.g., the fully pro-capable Canon 7D. Brand new at $1700/body. Fully pro.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Or my current flavor, the D300s.</p>

[mark_t5]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I know of some excellent professional wedding photographers who use APS-C cameras on a regular basis (for one of those photographers it is their only format)</em></p>

</blockquote>

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

<p>One of the masters of wedding photography uses a rebel....or at least he did when shooting the wedding that was showing in the video</p>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> While the discussion of APS vs. full frame sensors is interesting, it is perhaps, best for another thread, if one of you who is interested in the topic would like to post a question. Let's keep this thread about marketing and the $500 wedding photographer.</p>

[razondetre]

<p>Throughout this whole debate I noticed that everyone seems to be doing digital. I guess at $500. it is not possible to use real cameras and film, etc. </p>

<p>It is true, however, that few clients, if any, understand or recognize what photography is (composition, lighting, etc.) having been exposed to the $1.99 portrait specials by a real Wal-Mart photographer. And that sad fact has opened up the field to many self-proclaimed "professionals" who produce their credentials on their home printer (not referring in any way to anyone who uses this website). </p>

<p>It is regrettable to note that, at one time, a wedding photographer insisted on medium format, usually Hasselblad, with the best lenses to produce the highest quality work. When it was discovered that the public didn't know any better, the camera mfg.ers started selling point and shoots over SLRs and the "IFPO-weekend-photographer-crowd" started using 35mm doing the $500. wedding. Then it went from that to digital. </p>

<p>The golden age of everything is over. Maybe the next step is to set up a webcam at the back of the church and let a Chinese photographer do the wedding via the web for a $29.95 wedding package special (sort of like how they want to let an India based doctor diagnose patients in the U.S. over the web). </p>

[alin_daju]

<p>"It's interesting how people perceive value based on price."</p>

<p>You pay for what you get mate.<br>

I do driving instructing for a living in australia, and those that charge peanuts money for training such as $45/hr will give you just that: sit at the gutter, talk only and not working on the client.<br>

I charge $60/hr like most of the respectable schools and transform a novice into a competent and confident driver.<br>

Same in photography. I doubt that those charging $400 will be running around and make art out of their work.<br>

Pay $400 get cheap and nasty photos.</p>