I have to say that most people on here are NOT talking about the Jerry Ghionniss' or the Joe Buisink's or the Marcus Bell's who do charge and get the $20,000+, but they are shooting the real rich types and stars, for the most part.

No the people here are talking about their local Pro wedding photographers and are probably talking about the $1,500 to probably $3,000+ weddings. I have an idea, when you talk of the really expensive or exhorbitantly priced photographers in your area, how about including that price, so we know what you are talking about.

I believe, for the most part many of you probably have no real idea of exactly what goes into wedding photography of today. Nor do you have an appreciation of the cost of proper flash gear for a wedding or the actual cost to the photographer of a hand bound and printed wedding book.

We are not talking about your local Costco style book, or your MAC book that is offered or the one off the cheap photo printer web site like Mpix or Shutterfly. We are talking of quality heirloom products that have lifetime warranties that cost the photographer many, many hundreds of dollars and that is cost, not what it is marked up for selling.

I think many people have absolutely no concept of the amount of work and hours spent in finishing up a wedding shoot. I've mentioned all this here in an earlier post. And a 6 hour wedding day ios something we can only dream about. Almost all are min. 10 hours and up to 12 or 13 is normal, on the wedding day. But that is just the beginning.

I never see anyone question the $75 to $165 a plate for the dinner, or the reception hall costs or church charges or flowers and cake, not to mention the ring and dress. THAT is where the rediculous pricing comes from, NOT the photography. Funny how we never see anyone suggest aunty Mable do the cooking, because everyone loves her Sunday dinners, or Aunty Doris do the cake because she makes such good apple pie. No, it is always the poor photographer.

Why is it that most of you feel the food side, or flower side or dress making is not the place to cut corners? No... it is always the one who is charged with capturing all this stuff and the entire day's events, IS the one who should be cuting corners and reducing prices.

Catering is the place where you can cut corners, use a cheaper cut of meat, use one verg instead of a meddely of veg, smaller salad, no huge chocolates and pastry tables, just cake. Leave out the cheese and fruit dishes etc. But with photography, what would you like left out please? Maybe use a cheaper lens, don't bother running all over the place to get every important shot, maybe only use the cheap weak flash, or the 4megapixel P&S camera. Maybe reduce down the quality a little to save some money. How would you suggest getting the price down please?

You can't take a lower quality photo to save costs, you can't leave out some of the equipment. I never see anyone suggest the friend who hosts really fun parties as the one to do the catering, EVER!! Why not, everyone likes her cooking and no one ever complains? So many here seem to feel it's okay to ask a friend or family member to do the photography, so why is it not okay to have a friend do the cooking??

The $2,500+ diamond ring is just fine though right? Who would know if it was a $200 CZ in that ring setting? NOBODY would know, that's who and nobody would care so why does no one suggest saving money here, hmmm? The $3,000+ wedding dress to be worn just a few hours is fine though isn't it? Or the $4,000 spent on flowers maybe, that don't even last an entire day!!!!

Wow, no problem there shelling out all that money, but boy, $2,500 to $5,000 for the entire wedding coverage and book and this is somehow a rip off to so many people? Where are your minds, when thinking such things? I just don't understand the whole mind set here, it's time to get real about the costs of a wedding and stop blaming the photographer all the time, that's all I have to say.

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.

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.

When did you see your last movie? Hollywood has been digital for years. Did you think the dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park were real. I'm just joking before I get a nasty response. Actually most are still "filmed" on film. 35mm.
but I see that coming to an end soon myself. :roll:

In the late 70,s when I started my mentor told me the difference between a picture and a photograph is, a photograph you control the lighting, staging,position of your camera and posing if possible. Even landscape you have some control as well as the processing. ( I know with digital we now have more control in pp) A picture is taken of a moment with little or no control of the conditions. So I always say when I am doing a wedding there will be both Photos and Pictures as I understand it. The photos will be what I set up the pictures will be what is going on at the time. Lately I have gotten some backlash from other younger photographers that say there is no difference. I never argue I just smile and go on. I do more weddings than most of them anyway. So here is my guestion is this a old out of date ideal, did my mentor just tell me wrong, or does this hold true, or does it just hold true to a point?