Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

The Average cost of Wedding Photography?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

janeez
janeez e2 Member 61193 forum postsjaneez vcard United Kingdom8 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jun 2012 - 5:50 PM


Quote: to say that there are not 182 wedding days is plain stupid.


Well I am somewhat stunned by 182 weddings so far this year! I would be six foot under with sheer exhaustion at that rate! They are averaging 3.5 per week so far at a time of great austerity and far fewer people getting married. Estimated at approximately 200,000 last year across the whole of the UK. That is an average of 3846 per week, 29.5 per county for the whole of the UK. Their share of the market therefore would be 8.4%! Staggering!

The average wedding tog around here charges in the region of 1000. Work would be very sparse if you went much higher.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Jun 2012 - 5:50 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Graysta
Graysta  91135 forum posts England
9 Jun 2012 - 6:47 PM

182 weddings booked so far this year and looking to book 200 he employs a good few photographers and did 11 weddings over the Bank holiday weekend.

Last Modified By Graysta at 9 Jun 2012 - 6:48 PM
rossd
rossd  111061 forum posts England
9 Jun 2012 - 7:07 PM


Quote: Well I am somewhat stunned by 182 weddings so far this year!

I can only agree with that.

'So far this year' equals 6 months = 180 days (approx) = 1 a day! Given that it takes between 8 and 16 hrs sorting/ processing per wedding (or so I've read elsewhere on EPZ) that equates to impossible (IMO anyway)

rossd
rossd  111061 forum posts England
9 Jun 2012 - 7:12 PM


Quote: 182 weddings booked so far this year and looking to book 200 he employs a good few photographers

Ah.... I see.

182 bookings for the year distributed amongst a 'good few photographers'.

jimthistle73
9 Jun 2012 - 7:19 PM

Without being rude to your friend, I hate to think what the quality of those photos is like. He can't be paying his associates more than the minimum wage if he's turning a profit... Interesting business model and it obviously works, but is it damaging to the industry as a whole? Question for another thread perhaps?

adrian_w
adrian_w e2 Member 73352 forum postsadrian_w vcard Scotland4 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jun 2012 - 7:40 PM


Quote: I blame digital as its far easier today with a half decent dslr and a basic edit programme to produce acceptable work hence more and more people are putting themselves forward as pro photographers thus driving prices down.


Which is exactly the Lucian business plan.

thewilliam
9 Jun 2012 - 11:41 PM

There are certainly a lot more wedding photographers than I've ever known in the past and I shot my first wedding about 40 years ago.

Many of the newly redundant folk have good cameras and they decide to take the plunge because they have nothing to lose. Photography isn't exactly hard work so who can blame them?

The internet allows the newbie snapper a high degree of anonymity. All the punter knows is a web address and a mobile phone number, especially if the snapper uses a trading title rather than his/her own name. When things go badly wrong, the snapper can just burn the website and change the mobile phone number. Disgruntled punters can't sue a website!

scottishphototours


Quote: Photography isn't exactly hard work so who can blame them?

Today's wedding was one of the 44 we have booked for this year. This was a "no expense" day - the Bride was VERY demanding beforehand and had clearly spent a great deal of money on all sorts of stuff - dressing gowns, tiaras, magicians, fireworks, vintage cars, free bar, led dancefloor etc etc etc...

We left the house at 10am and arrived home at 11.40pm after shooting around 1800 images, putting up with a VERY rowdy bunch, and being bombarded by requests for pictures from all and sundry - and you think that this isn't exactly hard work????!!!!!!!...

Sorry, but one of the real problems I see is that there are few eejits like me, willing to put in the time and effort to get consistently great shots and to DELIGHT the couple. The people just starting out doing this want to come in with their 400 camera and kit lens, shoot 300 pics, burn them to a disc, take the money and run. I've seen so many of these jokers in the last 5 years - and the truth is that many of them aren't around any more - they just didn't understand that people want quality every time above all else and to get it takes hard work...

kaybee
kaybee  103823 forum posts Scotland24 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jun 2012 - 8:32 AM

Your wedding is probably the most important day of your life.
The wedding pictures are really the only enduring evidence and memory prompts

Why would anyone want to skimp on the pictures?
Even a 'budget' wedding should have decent pictures taken by somebody who cares.

Both my kids (I use the term very loosely) were basically financing their own weddings
but I am the one whose pocket was/is picking up the tab for the photographers.
In both cases there was extensive research done (by the bride & groom) to find the best
photographer for them (they like slightly different styles and the weddings are in different
countries).
Both of them (along with the banker) met with the photographers and saw hard copies of
what they would get - not just internet communication and web pictures.
This was important to them as they felt they had to get along with the photographers as
well as like what they saw because they knew that 'trust' was a major factor in getting
good results.
They also wanted to make sure they knew that they would not be getting somebody who
was doing the job themselves - not a 'part time', 'stand in' or 'Saturday snapper' hired in
to do the job.

Wedding photography is not just 'a job' - it is a passion and takes a certain type of person
to be able to do it - and do it well for years.
The photographer has to like and get on with people and really enjoy what they do and this
will always come across in face to face meetings.

julesm
julesm  101698 forum posts United Kingdom7 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jun 2012 - 10:41 AM

I think there is also a glut of so called 'pro photographers' that make all sorts of claims about their skills and experience, who cant shoot weddings for toffee, which will feed the impetus of the new breed of photographer wannabees. Having SWPP and more years behind you than others, doesnt make you a good wedding photographer. At the end of the day it boils down to the images you create and getting prospective client to appreciate them, and the importance of their wedding photography.

thewilliam
10 Jun 2012 - 11:35 AM


Quote: Photography isn't exactly hard work so who can blame them?


We left the house at 10am and arrived home at 11.40pm after shooting around 1800 images, putting up with a VERY rowdy bunch, and being bombarded by requests for pictures from all and sundry - and you think that this isn't exactly hard work????!!!!!!!...


Maybe I should have added that digital photography doesn't involve any expense other than the fuel to get to the venue.

Now where's that tongue in cheek emoticon?

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014137 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jun 2012 - 3:07 PM


Quote: Your wedding is probably the most important day of your life.
The wedding pictures are really the only enduring evidence and memory prompts

Why would anyone want to skimp on the pictures?

Maybe they are not that bothered about the photos.? I know loads of people who's only wedding photos are just a few snaps taken by the guests.
Maybe they are only interested in making a commitment to each other rather than the event.

newfocus
newfocus  8644 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jun 2012 - 3:35 PM


Quote: Maybe they are only interested in making a commitment to each other rather than the event.

Call me old fashioned and sentimental but that's exactly the view my wife and I took and the photos taken by our guests 17 years ago are fun, varied and personal. Just the job.

However, there are obviously plenty of folks who want a more formal records and if I did want professional photos taken I think I'd be more inclined to pay a higher price for proven experience/quality rather than skimping on cost. I doubt many folks who do want to hire a wedding photographer will be thinking "let's find the cheapest photographer we can for our wedding, regardless of their quality of work". My point is that that market would seem to be more sensitive to quality/reputation/brand image than to price.


Quote: digital photography doesn't involve any expense

That reminds me of this story of Picasso charging for a portrait Smile

Last Modified By newfocus at 10 Jun 2012 - 3:36 PM
MeanGreeny
10 Jun 2012 - 10:40 PM


Quote: That reminds me of this story of Picasso charging for a portrait Smile

Picasso wasn't the first artist to say it - he was plagiarising Whistler [and I hardly think Whistler was the first]


James Mcneill Whistler (1834-1903), U.S. artist: Part of an altercation during critic John Ruskin's lawsuit against Whistler, Nov. 15, 1878 for the inflammatory remark that led to the suit, which Whistler won, though it left him nearly penniless.

Ruskin's counsel: The labour of two days ... is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?

Whistler: No: I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139444 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
11 Jun 2012 - 12:14 AM

I hope Lucian is finding all this stuff helpful! Grin

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.