My History

[Bill_1856]

Wedding photography "packages" in my area (Sarasota, FL) seem to be going for multi-thousand dollars, sometimes as much as $20,000 (I nearly fainted when I heard it)! I have no idea what is involved, but I wonder what the problem is. And why so many shots -- just because you can do it doesn't mean that you have to.
(PS, this is not a troll -- I'm just perplexed. It just seems like an awful lot of money for not an excessive amount of work. What am I missing?)

[jnantz]

when i worked for a portrait photographer trained in the 20s/30s ...
she would partially retouch things for "proofs" and when the final negative/pose &C
was chosen the "final retouch" was done on those images.
recently, after shooting a wedding ( partially digital, partially 4x5 + 1/2 frame )
i did the same thing ( as i usually do) --- partially retouch and final retouch ... and it was a per image fee.
i don't see what the problem is or why photographers can't do exactly what people were doing "years ago" now ..
my clients have had nothing negative ( pardon the pun ) to say about the services i have offered ...
its what we agreed upon and was what they expected ...

the problem i see is that nowadays digital image makers rely on strength in numbers ...
(shooting 400-500-times what they need)
instead of knowing what to shoot and how to shoot it.
they might just as well shoot digital video and cherry pick images
out of the stream, whoops they do that already ...

[Greg Miller]

One example, when photographing weddings back in the film days I spent around 5-6 hrs. photographing the day and shot 100-150 images then sent the film of to the lab. Now with digital it is 8-12 hrs. of photographing and 500 images, which now of course I have to spend countless hours in front of a monitor editing and processing. That is why I dropped weddings this year.

You should have Photoshop actions set up to do initial processing (very basic color correction, contrast, sizing,...)(run as an Image Processor script). After you do your edits, just start the actions and go take a nap or have a nice meal. Once the initial processing is done you can present these inages to the client. Then do final processing for those images that the client selects. For 500 images this should not be taking that much of your time.

[Brandon Draper]

I shoot everything in Raw and use Capture One for processing. After that I pick a few images and spice them up a bit Photoshop.

One of the reason I think I shoot more is for the flush mount custom wedding albums. You need extra images for those to make them more interesting, like details shots.

[eddie]

great conversation.

i shot the occasional wedding. i do not want to compete directly with the digi snappers.

i thought about shooting some digital on the last wedding. i even borrowed a friends d200. what i thought would happen did. all the digital files i have to process. the film stuff i sent out and it came back pretty much all ready to proof. i would have to do some final touch ups but that was it.

well, i decided to move down another road. i have decided to shoot LF wedding portraits. either on location or in the studio. i have done a few already. i use alt processes as well to print with. my latest idea is to shoot wet plate collodion.....

[walter23]

the problem i see is that nowadays digital image makers rely on strength in numbers ...
(shooting 400-500-times what they need)
instead of knowing what to shoot and how to shoot it.
they might just as well shoot digital video and cherry pick images
out of the stream, whoops they do that already ...

I agree. A good photographer knows how to set up good images and only shoots those (plus I suppose a good number of candids if the couple wants that kind of photojournalistic coverage).

I think the biggest problem that well paid professionals face is the GWAC (Guy With A Camera) syndrome - now with digital SLRs being so popular everybody knows a GWAC with professional aspirations willing to shoot a wedding "for experience". (I know, I've been that GWAC). Most ordinary couples will just be happy with what the GWAC does.

I think those $20,000 gigs are kind of different; some people, especially those with money, want really top notch professional photography from an established photographer with a solid portfolio... so if you're good enough you need to seek out that market. The everyman just isn't going to pay for a wedding photographer if he knows a GWAC willing to do a good enough job for free. I mean that's $2K or something that can go into the honeymoon fund, right?

The other day I saw a guy write on another forum that he goes through 12 GB of storage cards on a typical day. That's (conservatively) 1200 images (with the camera he uses). What the hell? That's just absurd! The mark of incompetence if you ask me.

[Brandon Draper]

Actually the market in the US is the woman that are starting their own photography businesses. Men are the minority and a brick & mortar business are no longer the norm. Just about everybody that as started a portrait/wedding business in that few years are doing it out of their home.

[Bill_1856]

Just about everybody that has started a portrait/wedding business in that few years are doing it out of their home.

I think that's always been true, except for the rare few who start as an "apprentice" to an established studio, such as Olin Mills. Many great photographers started this way as "kidnappers", including Edward Weston and George Tice.
Of course the incompetent and dilettantes are eventually winnowed out, but meanwhile the established studios suffer, especially in the smaller locations where there are no big jobs to make up for the profitless little ones, which are counted on to pay the overhead but don't allow for any significant profit.
To survive, it is necessary to be agressive and have more than a little luck, as well as (maybe) some skill.
There was a recent thread here about Karsh, and it is certainly informative to read about his early days, when for many years he just barely kept his head above water.
(I feel for you, Brandon Draper. Life is tough, and I fear things are about to get worse!)

[Brandon Draper]

I feel it is also going to get a little rougher. I held on and I'm now the only photographer that as a downtown location, when back in the film days there was three of us and no part-timers to speak of because it cost alot more to get into professional photography. We have our share of part-timers taking up the market share. But I look at it this way, it just keeps me on my toe's to better my business and photography. Do it different than everybody else.

I think classic, well posed & lit photography will always have a place. The trend now is "lifestyle" potraiture where to me it looks like snap shots. I do know some great photographers that really pulled it off and it looks great. But most don't. I know I've tried it and it just didn't look right, it's just not my style of photography so I don't pretend I can do it.

[jnantz]

There was a recent thread here about Karsh, and it is certainly informative to read about his early days, when for many years he just barely kept his head above water.

it used to take 7 years of starving to get your name out.
not sure it is much different these days, even with the internet ....