Wedding photographers rant

mejinks

mejinks

mejinks

Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
5,037
Location
Hiraeth
In times of desperate economic climate, how have there not been random burnings of wedding photographers whose greed surpasses that of even merchant bankers?

They are in attendance for less than an hour, but charge more than consultant surgeons for their time. I appreciate they have a living to make, but charging £500 to be there and £25 per photo and £100 for a cd of the pictures that they take is beyond taking the mickey don't you think?

Can any photographers here justify the prices charged? Weddings are already prohibitively expensive as it is without people jumping on the bandwagon.

While we are on the subject, Vulture, sorry Venture photography. Who has had a phonecall like this in the past few days

"congratulations, you have one a family portrait worth £95 at a local Venture studio" If you read the small print the portrait is just that, less than an A4 piece of paper size. For £95??!? And then if you have it done, you can't have that size and then you have to pay for this that and the other, so in fact, its not actually free.

Am I getting old or are we just accepting rip off Britain taking us from behind at every oppertunity?
 
Venture is crap, they turn up the exposure and contrast in photoshop and thats the signature style. I dont see how that made money, apart from making ugly poeple have a white face the same as the background so you cant see it and then they can claim they're "hot"

If they're decent photographer they may spend hours afterwards touching up photos in -shop, but yet if you argue the decent photographer thing then they shouldnt need to adjust levels.
 
Our wedding photographer was a work friend of my wife's. They both worked part time and his home business was photography - he didn't charge us anything near £500 (iirc) though he did get an invite and free food ;)
 
You have to be complete mugs to have a wedding in the first place. They are just taking advantage of that fact, same with the Cake, Dress etc. Just add £££'s for the word 'Wedding'.
 
Wedding photographers also get really really comically annoyed with any amature photographers present - DSLR camera + tripod brought along by some relative sets them on a massive tilt - especially if the relative then offers to give copies of the photos to aunts/uncles etc...

fact is if they were any good and weren't charging over the odds then they'd have nothing to worry about as their photos ought to be superior and at a price that doesn't make people think twice about making a purchase. Sadly I think that a lot of them aren't necessarily that good at photography and do get a bit ambitious with pricing so anyone half decent at taking pics is an immediate threat to their earnings.
 
It's expensive, yes, but it's not necessarily as bad as you might think to start with. Lots of people have dSLRs nowadays, but they don't have the experience to ensure delivery of a standard quality product on the day. You're paying for experience, thousands of £ worth of equipment, preparation time, processing time and time at the event (and the vast majority are there for longer than an hour).

Saying that, there obviously are cowboys (/girls) out there that take people for a ride and have no skill with a camera ...
 
Id have to agree with A.N.Other, its not as simple as just turning up and snapping like the guests.
There is liability insurance, equipment and travel to think about, plus they shouldn't if they're any good be there for an hour.
The reason the cost so much is that they are solely responsible for the perfect wedding pictures and as such, if experienced enough should charge £500, unfortunately with dslr so cheap anyone can claim they area wedding photographer, but buying a car doesnt make you Lewis Hamilton.
 
ChroniC said:
Id have to agree with A.N.Other, its not as simple as just turning up and snapping like the guests.
There is liability insurance, equipment and travel to think about, plus they shouldn't if they're any good be there for an hour.
The reason the cost so much is that they are solely responsible for the perfect wedding pictures and as such, if experienced enough should charge £500, unfortunately with dslr so cheap anyone can claim they area wedding photographer, but buying a car doesnt make you Lewis Hamilton.
Click to expand...

If you put it in computing terms, arguably a security specialist is more valuable a person, yet they don't charge as much. I can appreciate that they have all the costs, but even if they are solely responsible, you don't really have any recompense if they get it wrong or miss good opportunities.

When my older brother got married 11 years ago, the pictures I took on a 2m digital point and click were miles ahead of the "professional" who had all the gear and seemed to be doing it all correctly. All the relatives have my photos on their mantelpieces, not the photographers, whose efforts are consigned to a book up in the loft.

Maybe then I am just embittered at my perceived rip off?
 
Just because your brother was stupid enough to hire a bad photographer doesn't make hiring a good one for that kind of money unreasonable.

How much do some paintings go for nowadays...?
 
mejinks said:
If you put it in computing terms, arguably a security specialist is more valuable a person, yet they don't charge as much. I can appreciate that they have all the costs, but even if they are solely responsible, you don't really have any recompense if they get it wrong or miss good opportunities.

When my older brother got married 11 years ago, the pictures I took on a 2m digital point and click were miles ahead of the "professional" who had all the gear and seemed to be doing it all correctly. All the relatives have my photos on their mantelpieces, not the photographers, whose efforts are consigned to a book up in the loft.

Maybe then I am just embittered at my perceived rip off?
Click to expand...
You might have just been unlucky and got a poor photographer.

Also there was a thread about Venture photography a while ago - clicky .
 
mejinks said:
If you put it in computing terms, arguably a security specialist is more valuable a person, yet they don't charge as much. I can appreciate that they have all the costs, but even if they are solely responsible, you don't really have any recompense if they get it wrong or miss good opportunities.

When my older brother got married 11 years ago, the pictures I took on a 2m digital point and click were miles ahead of the "professional" who had all the gear and seemed to be doing it all correctly. All the relatives have my photos on their mantelpieces, not the photographers, whose efforts are consigned to a book up in the loft.

Maybe then I am just embittered at my perceived rip off?
Click to expand...

Sounds like it, a good wedding photographer based on the service they sell, will be there pre wedding and if you choose till the party. They then have to retouch hundreds of pictures which can take up to a week in some cases, get it shippped off to the book makers, and printers, then do the cd. I know a fair few wedding photographers and the time they spend ends up being about 10 hours or so on one wedding. There easily worth £50quid an hr.
 
Also dont forget the service they provide directly after the service, its often the photographer that arranges people into the correct places etc etc.

Last wedding i went to the company supplied 2 photographers, one to follow the bridal party from early in the morning and one to follow the groom and his party. The subsequent portfolio gave an excellent story of the day :)
 
you're moaning about a photographer charging £500? Welcome to the bargain basement of wedding photographers, most photographers worth their salt charge at least £1k+ and yes it is justified.

Typical wedding on my £1k package, I will spend ~8 hours before the day, consulting with the client, going through the options with them etc, visiting the church, visiting the reception venue (let alone travel costs having to do this both now and on the day), then a small shoot with them before the day (2 hours) then on the actual day another 8-10 hours of client facing work, then another 8 hours or so of post processing and album design.

Then the album itself costs over a hundred quid at cost even to trade, so in actual effect i'm only really taking home less than £30 an hour, and I'm lucky that my assistant is happy to work for experience atm, otherwise that's another chunk of cash! Offset that against the cost of decent equipment (£13k and counting), marketing and liability/equipment insurance (£500 a year), and it really doesn't actually add up to that much, reprints are one of the only ways to make decent money until my reputation improves even more :)

If you want a serious amount of dosh, go and ask Brett Harkness for a quote......his standard package is £10,000 these days ;)

</rant>
 
Last edited:
Ironic that a few years later some people just want to forget it ever happened lol, drive through vegas wedding in a Cadillac dressed as Elvis is the sensible option me thinks
 
yeah, just looked Barnes wedding stuff, only a few slides mind and it's not that great. If he kept the same style as the bands and drop dead clothing then yeah, but then that would probally involve all photos of poeple being bent over and pulling a "rawr" face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom