Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Marcomarks said he paid 150 in 1973. An inflation calculator says that would be 776 dollars today.

I've been a photographer since the 60's and I wouldn't attempt a wedding. I've been asked many times to do one. A pro knows what to expect, what looks best, the proper equipment, and has experience. But the costs ranging to 5 grand are a bit much for most people. I agree they take too many pictures, 100 to 250 carefully selected photos should be more than enough.

Then there is the issue of point and shoot camera which in addition to the cardboard boxed cameras sit up a totally different dynamic for people wanting to save money.

I still think that photographers take way too many pictures. Film required you to be selective. I started with a 4x5 and you have to be very selective. I take too, what I feel, is too many photos usually around 150 per news event I'm at but my friends will take a 1,000 or more. To each their own.

Weddings are expensive and everyone wants to cut expenses. A dress, decorations, and a cake are visible to guests. The results of a photographer aren't seen by everyone and seems to be an expense first under the chopping block. And, of course, everyone that can press a button can be a photographer. Sure....

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

With regards to the phrase "exorbitant prices", I think some of you need to address the many days of work that will go into a professional shoot to arrive at a finished product for the bride and groom.

I think a lot of you are just going by the 10-12+ hours the photographer spent at the wedding. This is only the time it took to collect the images. After that there is dozens of hours spent downloading, cataloging and filling images taken. Then going through them all to edit out what stays in, then retouching some photographer choices, then having a meeting with the happy couple to go through their images and pick what they want in their album, then posting images on line for all to see, then doing to finished Photoshop work to the images for the album, then designing the album and getting it off to the printers and then the final meeting to deliver that product.

Add up all those hours and divide it through the price being charged and you will find it is not very much per hour at all, once you have deducted the costs of the album and possible prints being delivered.

The caterers, DJ and flower person were done at the end of the night of the wedding. The poor photographer only collected his ingredients at the end of that night, now the real work begins. So don't be quite so quick to make suppositions about the charges a real pro wedding photographer is making.

I am not talking about the take 1,000 shots and burn to DVD and be done type rubbish photographers here mind you, but a true professional wedding photographer.

lj

That is precisely one of the things I learned Lucian! I wasn't implying that what is charged is too much, there is a ton of work and time and I think the money is well spent and most of the time a fair price. The particular couple that I spoke of just couldn't afford it. Unfortunately the average person doesn't know what all happens after the wedding day.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

I wasn't singling you out Lj, I mean anyone who goes on to say wedding photographer are charging too much, without giving much thought to the entire process.

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

i went to a wedding (did not take a camera) saturday. the brides father asked me not to bring a camera. the "pro" photographer they hired was a guy that i know from the area..he's about as much a photographer as i am a brain surgeon. he had a canon xt rebel with a kit lens (18-55mm)..took all photos without flash or any additional light and it was pretty dark in both the church and the reception hall. i watched him posing the bride and groom...man, did i feel like an expert!! this guy was awful. the bride's father was a really good friend. i asked him how he picked this photographer.....he said "price". he had him over 5 hours for $100. i told him he is going to get what he paid for.........

here was his answer, which made me speechless (and that doesn't happen very often)....he replied....why spend a fortune on photos, big chance they will be divorced in a year or 2 and i don't really like the guy she is marrying. that blew me away. i didn't even know what to say.

i havent seen the photos and really don't care to, but a f4 or f4.5 kit lens on an old canon rebel xt without a flash cannot and will not take 1 decent photo in a dark situation. i'm not sure my 7d or 5d would take a decent photo in that lighting situation with that lens.

when i got married 27 years ago..we have a photo album with professional photos by a professional photographer and they are all awesome. there might be 25 or 30 photos...not 1500.

as a learning photographer...no way would i give anyone my really bad shots or mistakes. i have done a few weddings with lots of photos...but i run them automatically through 2 photoshop actions, not 1 at a time. the few really main shots, i will post process them individually..but definitely not all of them.

not everyone hiring a pro photographer is looking for budget or budget quality. i would keep my prices where they need to be and have some great examples to show them where they can see the "difference".

as cliff said...you get what you pay for.

i took a full days training from dan ablan, ablan studios in chicago (forest park)...and i was blown away by the photos he had on his walls.....all were very large and framed or stretched over canvas. he spent a lot of money to show off his work. when you walk into his place...you know you are not at "uncle johns". even if you work out of your home...get some "knock your socks off" prints made of the work and quality you have to offer.

i have a friend in ohio that works professionally out of his house and is booked all the time for weddings and senior pics....he had 6 or 7 pretty good size photobooks printed up he could take to the clients home or meeting place to show his quality.

it's getting tougher out there, but you cannot sit by the phone and wait for a phone call...you have to learn to market yourself.

i don't remember at any time when i met a professional photographer, that he or she said it was going to be "easy"

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

and one more thing...it's all about priorities..

if i was getting married and i couldn't afford a lot of extras because i just didn't have the money....i would cut down the expenses on flowers or cut the meal for a fingerfood buffet or even buy less expensive rings..rather than say i have to hire a friend to take photos on the most important day of my life, because i can't afford a photographer.....

the day after the wedding..the flowers are gone, the meal is gone...and you are just as married with $200 rings as $2000 rings...but your photos are what is going to carry on a lifetime.

this is the message that we, as photographers need to get across.

photos are the visual, physical memories you can hold in your hand.

guy145 Loc: Norridge IL

The person next door son worked for a major studio here in chicago for about 25yr. He started out doing wedding viedos and was given jobs by the studio like he was a freelancer but the studio got a cut of the action. He had all the equipment, software and office. The studio told him to cut his fee and their fee would remain the same. He said go jump in the lake and quit. He looked for other work for a year. A pro photography came a long and said I need a person to shoot weddings and events, I will give you a reference and you work on your own. He has not had a weekend off for a while and gets about $4000.00 for a day work. Extra dvds are $200.00 ea. Everybody wants a video today. The pictures are are not inportant.

sploppert Loc: Rochester, NY

I agree with you 100% well said

sploppert Loc: Rochester, NY

I agree with you 100% well said

Judddude Loc: Missouri

This sums it up.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I know what you are saying. My middle daughter had a tight budget. My son-in-law was in grad school and she was an undergrad. He was living on a stipend and she was paying her own way. (I know we are awful parents) We told her how much we would put toward a wedding and told her they would have to decide what was the most important to them. They ended up paying a modest amount for pictures, didn't pay for a fancy cake, and spent there money on a contra band. The reception was held in our barn. They have some nice formal shots and a lot of snapshots from the reception. Many people have told me it was the most fun wedding they have ever attended. So I guess what I am saying is not every one can afford a high priced photographer and that need not ruin the day. If she had paid the average going rate in our area she would have spent her whole budget on pictures or gone into debt. She loves the pictures she has because they bring back memories of the day.
You are so right. It is only a wedding.
I am not saying there isn't a time and place for the high end photographers, but for the average person it isn't a viable option.

sploppert Loc: Rochester, NY

never mind

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

It seems that there trend is to buy a bunch of disposable cameras and hand them out to the guest. The guest then record your wedding. I am betting that is what happened. I shot a wedding recently (non paid for one of my best friends son and they did this. The ironic thing is that a week later when I had all of my processing done and had created a slideshow and prints for this couple they had already split up.

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

wow, that's $200k a year for just 4 days a month if he just works saturdays. i know lots of video guys that make a good living, but not that kind of money..your friend's son is very lucky.

as far as the photos not being important...i have been to lots and lots of weddings the last few years and have only seen 2 that were videotaped...all the rest were photographed.

saying that photos are not important is a pretty harsh statement, but i respect your opinion.

Jim F. Loc: North Richland Hills, TX

My biggest problem was the little old ladies with their spit-it-out-the-bottom bottom Polaroid cameras. I had a set of family photos I always took and with everyone there, I could shift people in and out very quickly so I could give them photos with everyone they might want. I also told those with their own cameras that they could shoot beside me but I got the first shot then when they saw my flash, they could shoot. There would be this little old lady with blue hair who would shout, "Don't nobody move, I want to see if I got a good one."