Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
What has happened to wedding photography
Page <<first <prev 12 of 12
Feb 23, 2012 11:35:53   #
Country's Mama Loc: Michigan
 
Lucian wrote:
Wheezie...

I would have loved to be there to hear those conversations.


Me too.

Reply
Feb 23, 2012 14:53:38   #
Wheezie
 
Lucian wrote:
Wheezie...

I would have loved to be there to hear those conversations.


It's was amazing to hear what people valued. These conversations were early to late 90's.
Does anyone remember "genuine copperplate engraved invitations??? we sold them at the bridal shop and they were wicked expensive.. only the trained eye could tell the difference but some people HAD to have them!

Reply
Feb 29, 2012 16:46:40   #
Abbigirl
 
sploppert wrote:
Abbigirl wrote:
MT Shooter wrote:
The price of the average "Professional" wedding photographer has gotten so exorbitant that many people are looking for cheaper alternatives. Without properly checking out the work of who you hire, you will likely get less than stellar results.
There has got to be a happy medium somewhere.


I agree with you 100%. True Professionals charge so much for a wedding. Not everyone getting married is from the society pages. Not everyone getting married can afford thousands of dollars in photography fees. The prices are outrageous. So many pro photographers are too busy over charging, so people end up using amateurs. They might not be as good as the pro but the amateur is affordable so you get what you pay for. And like someone mentioned they had to see the sample pictures before they got hired, so they knew what they were getting.
quote=MT Shooter The price of the average "P... (show quote)


But a $800.00 cake, a $1200.00 video that is unedited and $800.00 for a DJ that plays for 3 hrs is reasonable?
quote=Abbigirl quote=MT Shooter The price of the... (show quote)


I wouldn't say all that, oh yeah and I didn't say all that!

Reply
 
 
Feb 29, 2012 17:42:34   #
Abbigirl
 
Country's Mama wrote:
Lucian wrote:
Country's mama and anyone else like you...

Don't misunderstand me please, I fully agree that those who get married for $50 are just as married as the $50,000+ ones and sometimes more happy and long lasting as well. I would never put anyone down who is working with a tight budget who could not afford anything. Nor those simply not willing to pay out a ton of money on a full blown wedding. That's great and I respect that, whether it is budget constraint or common sense thing or both.

What I was wanting to address is the many people here possibly, who are expressing distaste for what they deem ed an expensive photographer, yet may well have spent out loads of money for all the other things I listed, with absolutley no qualms or consideration to what they were paying for the other stuff. All they talk about is the cost of the photographer and how expensive they are.

I was talking about the weddings I have shot whereby they were doing their best to beat me down on price for every little thing, yet when I turned up to shoot it, I could see that no expense was spared or probably even given thought to, regarding the reception hall, the flowers all over the place at the church and reception, the dinner being offered to the guests with open bar, the dress and the ring I was shooting. Those are the people out there that I'm against, not those who have been cautious all the way round with their spending.

People either like my work and want me for my work and will come up with the payment, or they are shopping around for price and could really not give a darn about what you will be producing, just the final price.

Of the rest on here who were complaining about what the photographer was charging for their family's wedding or that of a friend, have a think back on that wedding for a moment. What did it look like was spent on the flowers, venue/catering, dress and ring? More often than not, these are the areas where money seems to be no object and/or no one even gave any thought about it. Yet the photographer is where they want to save by using a school leaver trying to build a portfolio or gain experience and is willing to "Practice" on their weddings for a low price.

That is because weddings today, and I see many of them all the way through each year, which most of you here, don't, all seem to be about the show and not about the religious experience of getting married. It is the spectacle, to show off to their friends and family... look what a big bash we are throwing, nahh, nahh, nahh! type mentality.

It seems to be all about the day and no thought to what is actually taking place here and what that means in the future, to the generations that will follow. That is where good photography will come into its own. It's for the future generations to be able to look back and see a beautiful capture of that day represented in a quality body of work, not 2,000 images burned on a DVD stuff in a draw somewhere.

I bet all of us ready would love to be able to see what our grand parents or great grand parents weddings were like, through the use of photography, and none of us would really care how big that ring was or how spectacular the dress was, or how many courses the dinner was, or how many flower arrangements were scattered about the huge fancy hall. What that tells you is that the photography is the one thing that should be given the most attention and consideration, and today it seems to be the last thing on the list.

I respect anyone who had a simple marriage, and usually they were wonderful fun and loving events, I've shot them too. Where the parents did actually do the catering for example and the venuse was a simple little building. I'm just trying to draw attention to all the times that people always blame the photographer for pushing up a cost of a wedding. The one who just happens to be the single person who invested more time in the entire affair than all the other parties put together.

How many of you have seen or heard a discussion somewhere, where people were complaining about the cost of the photographer, or suggesting ways to get cheaper photographic coverage? I'm sure many of you have, be honest but how many have every heard anyone discuss how to get cheaper food, flowers, dresses or rings to help save money on that wedding? Can I hear NONE or almost none, from you? Why is that I wonder, I'd like to know?

All those who have mentioned how you had a simple, low cost yet fun and happy wedding, fantastic, I applaude you, that is great in my books. But those who have complained about the photographer and never gave any thought to how much the rest of it all cost, those are the people who ought to be rethinking your priorities and giving credit to those parties where credit has been lacking, from you. That deserving party would be the photographer by the way.
Country's mama and anyone else like you... br br ... (show quote)


I understand where you are coming from. I really do. I think that a good photographer is worth every penny. And if you can afford it go for it. If you can't you shouldn't. I would just like to see a wedding photographer that gave an affordable option to couples who can't afford the expensive all inclusive package.
I am grateful for the two photographers that gave my daughters and their husbands an affordable option or they would have just had the pictures mom, dad and the aunts and uncles took.
quote=Lucian Country's mama and anyone else like ... (show quote)


This is exactly what I mean when I say not everyone getting married is coming out of the society pages and a lot of couples can't afford a professional photographer because too many of them are over priced. And yes I understand all that is involved in photographing a wedding however you can't tell me that they can't put together an affordable package for people on a budget. And I don't care what anybody says, visual keepsake or not $5000.00 on wedding pictures is just ridiculous. I also believe spending thousands on a cake and a wedding dress is just as ridiculous. All that money just to impress a bunch of people that are gonna criticize, judge, and bad mouth everything from the food to whether or not the bride should have worn white to her wedding.

Reply
Aug 9, 2012 11:34:06   #
grassroots
 
MWAC wrote:
CaptainC wrote:
photosbyhenry wrote:
My nephew's daughter got married last August and so far they have posted over 1,000 photos. Lots are overexposed and not what I consider captured the tender momments of the wedding. My wife and I got married in September of 1966 and we have 28 photos in our wedding album. Is this a trend with digital (alledged) photographers to just shoot and shoot and shoot? I see a lot of wedding photos posted on web sites that are washed out and overexposed. Am I just old school or have others noticed this?
My nephew's daughter got married last August and s... (show quote)


Your nephew's daughter hired one of the industry's bottom feeders. I would suggest she got exactly what she paid for.
Sad, isn't it?
quote=photosbyhenry My nephew's daughter got marr... (show quote)



If they saw the photographer's portfolio and it was true representation of their work then it's hard to feel sorry for the client. They were looking for a deal and got what they paid for.
quote=CaptainC quote=photosbyhenry My nephew's d... (show quote)


Hey, mwac good to hear from you.
Had a chance to talk with a guy in Sisters, Oregon. His close friend is a pro wedding photographer. He bid on a wedding and since he was feeling a pinch like the rest of us he gave a slightly lower bid than normal. He had a chance to speak with the person who beat his bid by @150 and was curious about the lighting; so he asked the other what sort of f-stops the shooter would be using and the person replied: "what's an f-stop?"

Reply
Aug 9, 2012 23:24:48   #
Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
 
Roger Hicks wrote:
Lucian wrote:
. . . I fully agree that those who get married for $50 are just as married as the $50,000+ ones and sometimes more happy and long lasting as well. . . . What I was wanting to address is the many people here possibly, who are expressing distaste for what they deemed an expensive photographer, yet may well have spent out loads of money for all the other things I listed, with absolutely no qualms or consideration to what they were paying for the other stuff. All they talk about is the cost of the photographer and how expensive they are. . . . I was talking about the weddings I have shot whereby they were doing their best to beat me down on price for every little thing, yet when I turned up to shoot it, I could see that no expense was spared or probably even given thought to, regarding the reception hall, the flowers all over the place at the church and reception, the dinner being offered to the guests with open bar, the dress and the ring I was shooting. Those are the people out there that I'm against, not those who have been cautious all the way round with their spending.

People either like my work and want me for my work and will come up with the payment, or they are shopping around for price and could really not give a darn about what you will be producing, just the final price. . . It is the spectacle, to show off to their friends and family... look what a big bash we are throwing, nahh, nahh, nahh! type mentality.

It seems to be all about the day and no thought to what is actually taking place here and what that means in the future, to the generations that will follow. That is where good photography will come into its own. It's for the future generations to be able to look back and see a beautiful capture of that day represented in a quality body of work, not 2,000 images burned on a DVD stuff in a draw somewhere.

I bet all of us ready would love to be able to see what our grand parents or great grand parents weddings were like, through the use of photography, and none of us would really care how big that ring was or how spectacular the dress was, or how many courses the dinner was, or how many flower arrangements were scattered about the huge fancy hall. What that tells you is that the photography is the one thing that should be given the most attention and consideration, and today it seems to be the last thing on the list.

I respect anyone who had a simple marriage, and usually they were wonderful fun and loving events, I've shot them too. Where the parents did actually do the catering for example and the venuse was a simple little building. I'm just trying to draw attention to all the times that people always blame the photographer for pushing up a cost of a wedding. The one who just happens to be the single person who invested more time in the entire affair than all the other parties put together.

How many of you have seen or heard a discussion somewhere, where people were complaining about the cost of the photographer, or suggesting ways to get cheaper photographic coverage? I'm sure many of you have, be honest but how many have every heard anyone discuss how to get cheaper food, flowers, dresses or rings to help save money on that wedding? Can I hear NONE or almost none, from you? Why is that I wonder, I'd like to know?

All those who have mentioned how you had a simple, low cost yet fun and happy wedding, fantastic, I applaude you, that is great in my books. But those who have complained about the photographer and never gave any thought to how much the rest of it all cost, those are the people who ought to be rethinking your priorities and giving credit to those parties where credit has been lacking, from you. That deserving party would be the photographer by the way.
. . . I fully agree that those who get married fo... (show quote)


Few if any rational people would disagree with you. Certes, I'd regard money spent on the photographer as a better investment than flowers, DJ, or even dress. In fact, for DJs, I'd say that if the guests don't want to talk to one another, they shouldn't have been invited: the DJ should perhaps receive a small bribe to stay away.

Unfortunately, rationality is always at a premium.

Cheers,

R.
quote=Lucian . . . I fully agree that those who ... (show quote)


I agree with you Rodger. The 39 years that Ive done weddings about the last 12 the DJs were the worst thing I remember about weddings. Even the rock bands were really bad. Nothing but very loud noise. One wedding the brides father ask the band to turn down the amps about three times. They didn't so he pulled all their plugs and told them to leave. The rest of the night they danced to nice recored music. I retired in 93 so I guess Im an old fuddy duddy. I try not to even go to weddings any more.

Reply
Aug 13, 2012 20:37:18   #
JosephB Loc: South Jersey
 
I did my first wedding in 1976 - I've worked for studios, shot my own, even gave up photography for a while.
The business has changed, the taste and what people expect from you has changed.
You no longer compete against other professionals but against everyone with a prosumer Canon, Nikon and now even an iPhone or iPad.
I mostly do weddings for friends (or at least children of friends and friends of friends).
I don't give them a price - I do the wedding because I enjoy doing the photography.
When they want to know how much I want - I ask them how much is the DJ getting (some of them around here are getting $800 - 2,000). I tell them that's a good start since I'll be there all day not just 3 hours at the reception. That I will have to edit several hundred photos which will take a few days worth of work.
I put the images on line - they can download an image or a print.
I'll help them put together an album if they want.
The cost of an individual download or print - depends on how much they give me for shooting the wedding. It could range for free for a download to up to $20.00 for an 8x10 print (or $5.00 for an 8x10).
If they tell me they have no money (and a lot play that card) but I get to the reception with a 3 hour open bar, $2,000 DJ, sit down meal (which I don't even get), I charge accordingly for prints.
I've been given $1,000 to shoot and on the low end a hug and a thank you.
My only complaint in the last 5 years - I didn't give someone a free DVD of the images (but they spent maybe $25,000 on their wedding and I didn't even get a thank you). Oh yeah, a second complaint - "We should have taken more formals".
I see an article in an upcoming newsletter about wedding photography.
Lots of viewpoints here - some very interesting, some worth looking into and some I'm just gonna ignore.
But you all certainly have given me things to think about.

Reply
 
 
Jun 15, 2016 04:03:25   #
photodaddy Loc: Missouri
 
The digital camera has made almost all photography a bad image. A person can take some awesome photos if they know how to use their camera. But 1000 photos is a bit much even for me.


I used a film camera in its heyday and took fairly great photos. I didn't have the luxery of seeing my photo instantly;
But now these so called wedding photographers are a dime a dozen. They go out and but the most expensive camera and lens and think they are a photographer. And then there are the photographers who use the iphone to take wedding pics. Really disgusting.

Reply
Jun 15, 2016 05:42:15   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
photosbyhenry wrote:
My nephew's daughter got married last August and so far they have posted over 1,000 photos. Lots are overexposed and not what I consider captured the tender momments of the wedding. My wife and I got married in September of 1966 and we have 28 photos in our wedding album. Is this a trend with digital (alledged) photographers to just shoot and shoot and shoot? I see a lot of wedding photos posted on web sites that are washed out and overexposed. Am I just old school or have others noticed this?
My nephew's daughter got married last August and s... (show quote)


Agreed, sorta. Wedding "photographers" broadly fall into two categories - professionals and "shoot and burners." The latter will go to a wedding, shoot jpegs, bring a laptop where they can burn a DVD at the end of the night which they hand over in exchange for a few hundred dollars - between $500 and $900. The pros continue to offer care, a great customer experience, and outstandingly good images - but at a significantly higher price. They will often come with an assistant and possibly a second shooter. A typical pro wedding will cost $3000 and up. Most people tend to be price sensitive and will try to get a "deal" by asking Uncle Joe, Aunt Mary or a friend (or all three) to bring their camera and shoot the wedding - in exchange for a fun time and a crappy meal. The reward is a huge amount of medium to low quality snapshots, with many falling into the unacceptable category. So, since the wedding photography industry is a service business that is client-driven - I would say that clients have driven the cost and quality of wedding photography into the basement - because there is an unending supply of total amateurs always on hand to offer their services for next to nothing - which is very appealing, until they get the results.

Reply
Jun 15, 2016 05:54:39   #
BebuLamar
 
photosbyhenry wrote:
My nephew's daughter got married last August and so far they have posted over 1,000 photos. Lots are overexposed and not what I consider captured the tender momments of the wedding. My wife and I got married in September of 1966 and we have 28 photos in our wedding album. Is this a trend with digital (alledged) photographers to just shoot and shoot and shoot? I see a lot of wedding photos posted on web sites that are washed out and overexposed. Am I just old school or have others noticed this?
My nephew's daughter got married last August and s... (show quote)


You're old school! People now like washed out pictures. By the way they think it gives them the film look.

Reply
Jun 15, 2016 09:49:58   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
photosbyhenry wrote:
My nephew's daughter got married last August and so far they have posted over 1,000 photos. Lots are overexposed and not what I consider captured the tender momments of the wedding. My wife and I got married in September of 1966 and we have 28 photos in our wedding album. Is this a trend with digital (alledged) photographers to just shoot and shoot and shoot? I see a lot of wedding photos posted on web sites that are washed out and overexposed. Am I just old school or have others noticed this?
My nephew's daughter got married last August and s... (show quote)

That washed out look is popular these days...that's all. Not a mistake, a "look"

Reply
Page <<first <prev 12 of 12
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.