Wedding photography rates

[ricktas]

Whilst there is often discussion about 'what to charge', we also see regularly, cheap rates being discussed for photography in general, but also often for weddings.

There must be a line between cheap and reasonable, Considering all the work that goes into photographing a wedding, and then editing those photos, along with the associated meetings with the couple, provision of photos on disk, as prints, and in album form, what would you consider to be the LOWEST price that you would pay a wedding photographer.

There must be a point at which, cheap price means cheap looking results.

So if you were planning a wedding today, what would be the cheapest price you would consider paying a wedding photographer, based on wanting good quality results, both in original image quality (compositions, focus, etc) and post processing quality. After all their must be a perceived point where value and quality meet.

The two ends of the range must have a mid-point where cheap and nasty, or over-priced, meet and offer quality and value at a reasonable price. Where do you see that price point?

[Rattus79]

I chose under $2500 as that's about what I paid for ours. (he's since changed his pricing structure and is closer to $4000 now)

The photographer was our single largest cost for the wedding.

[Mat]

I think about $1800 is the base area if you want to have some quality shots. Sure there might be some cheaper that are also good quality just as there would be some that could charge more for lesser quality but to put it into a broad ball park I chose under $2500.

[virgal_tracy]

I think the question is incomplete. I know where you are going with it but there are a few variables that are missing. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from your description that you are basing the pricing structures on a shoot and burn package without any products. There are many photographers that don't offer shoot & burn but include products into their package eg. albums, proof books, images etc.

I know you mentioned products in your original description but are we looking at what we would pay for a wedding package (images, disk, proofs, album) or what we perceive the skills of the photographer to be worth and therefore what would we pay them to photograph our wedding.

For what it is worth I chose under $5k. I payed a little over $1k for my wedding (at the beginning of the digital era with about 100 digital images and 17 rolls of film with negatives supplied, proof images + 2 24 x 16 prints) admittedly this was for a midweek wedding and was a much cheaper price than the regular weekend prices. I always placed value on photography but probably not as much as I do now.

[extraball]

I would expect to pay at least 1500, anything done for less would probably be dodgy.

[ricktas]

I think the question is incomplete. I know where you are going with it but there are a few variables that are missing. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from your description that you are basing the pricing structures on a shoot and burn package without any products. There are many photographers that don't offer shoot & burn but include products into their package eg. albums, proof books, images etc.

I know you mentioned products in your original description but are we looking at what we would pay for a wedding package (images, disk, proofs, album) or what we perceive the skills of the photographer to be worth and therefore what would we pay them to photograph our wedding.

For what it is worth I chose under $5k. I payed a little over $1k for my wedding (at the beginning of the digital era with about 100 digital images and 17 rolls of film with negatives supplied, proof images + 2 24 x 16 prints) admittedly this was for a midweek wedding and was a much cheaper price than the regular weekend prices. I always placed value on photography but probably not as much as I do now.

I agree there are lots of variables, but I was interested in seeing where people see a perceived value for money/quality price point beginning.

[alsocass]

I paid $1200 for our photos ten years ago. That was at mates rates (pretty much half price).

Until recently I had no idea what photography entailed (especially the post-production), and would have chosen under $1500. Now I get it, I have seen good and bad photos and I know that you have to pay for good ones.

I think if you polled non-photographers you would get a very different answer.

[Warbler]

Anyone can shoot weddings if they have an iPhone.

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/235...ddings-one-day

[JasonR]

A friend of mine payed 10k for her wedding photos. They were nice photos but I couldn't justify 10k.
Some other friends got married recently and paid 3k and I'd say 70% of the photos are not focused properly and edited really poorly.

[snappysi]

I Paid $1200 for our photographer just under 2 years ago. We got a discount as my wife won a competition that was run from a wedding expo she attended. ( Must point out that the discount did not asure we booked with this person, we still looked at his port to see if we liked his style. The discount turned out to be a bonus ) I also did a deal in that the photographer shot the day and then handed over the shots for me to edit. it worked out for both of us that way. Would i do that... prob not, would you.. maybe not., but that was the deal we struck and he was happy with this.

Simon.

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's not a simple question. I spent close to $5k on mine, but we originally budgeted for a max of $3k.

In my research I came across some around $1500 which had great shots and also had good feedback on forums (though I figure paying more is likely to give you a 'tog who can handle the difficult situations/specific requests better, handle families better and is an overall more professional package). Not sure how many photos were edited, but blogs/full photo shoots online were good (I don't take much stock in a portfolio; it's a full blog which I want to see)

Personally, I just feel that $1500 is in the 'real budget' variety, so while I might have gone that low, I think I'd feel a bit uncomfortable going below $2k.

The prices I'm talking about include an album and disc of some sort, just to give some idea of where I'm at.

[Longshots]

Consumers drive the market and its up to you as the photographer to decide what you will work for and what actually earns you some money. Weddings for me are not a money maker by any stretch of the imagination as I personally put a great deal of effort into them, an effort that I dont charge appropriately for (in hindsight). Sure I could just process everything as I capture in it camera, as 99% of my shots I nail the exposure (and I should be able to do that having grown up on film and especially transparency capture where there is virtually zero room for error). But I dont, because I choose not to, because I have the ability to improve virtually every shot.

So I spend time additional time on pre production meetings, pre production recces, and then day of the event, its been 16 hours in general, then post production, I indulge and take a great deal of time on every single shot - all because I can, and all because I choose to. Thats what my clients want, they chose me for that approach.

So is the fee I charge for each wedding worthwhile ? To me, Yes. But its borderline if I was comparing it with my other work. What I would be prepared to work for in all honesty would be dependent on so many factors ( as I'm sure any self employed person would understand ) - have I been heavily booked ? have I received a swathe of bills which all need to be paid ? do I like the client / do I not warm to the client ? am I hungry for work ? do I like the location ? or was the last time I shooting at that same location treated like a piece of dog crap by the venue ?

I assure you that all of those particular inputs would depend on my willingness to negotiate a lower rate to the one that I might initially quote.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I wasn't sure how to answer either. Marianne and I paid just under 3K for a package that we were more than happy with and don't charge as much
Our rates do depend on - time of coverage, reception coverage, any other additions like canvas prints, albums, thank you cards etc. - if people wanted all of the above and full day coverage, it would come to significantly more than the 1500 I marked down in the poll. But if they just wanted a few hours coverage with just low res proofs and a few high res files of their choice, the 1500 ballpark seems reasonable.

As an exercise, we worked out that our last wedding of 5 hours shooting included 2 1 hour meetings prior (1 on booking, 1 closer to the date as a walkthrough), we ended up giving 500 proofs - editing on average took 3 minutes a picture (ranging from literally 1 click action for some , to 20-30 minutes on others) - which meant that they were really paying for 30+ hours of our time.

[Tony B]

I chose under $2500 as that's about what I paid for ours. (he's since changed his pricing structure and is closer to $4000 now)

The photographer was our single largest cost for the wedding.

Charging $4ooo one would need only to work 1 day per week. I was a full time salaried photographer in the 70's & have been a sport coach for 25 years participating in 5 sports at a national/international level . If I tried to charge that fee for a similar time of work I would be laughed at. I blame an uneducated public that gets what it deserves as far as any photographer is concerned. The only reason I am not a photographer is that I earnt more as an accountant prior to sport coaching that enables me now to live a life of ease. I was a photogrpher when we got it right in camera & did not need to spend hours processing. A wedding took a couple of hours & one did 3 or 4 on a Saturday.

[JM Tran]

Charging $4ooo one would need only to work 1 day per week. I was a full time salaried photographer in the 70's & have been a sport coach for 25 years participating in 5 sports at a national/international level . If I tried to charge that fee for a similar time of work I would be laughed at. I blame an uneducated public that gets what it deserves as far as any photographer is concerned. The only reason I am not a photographer is that I earnt more as an accountant prior to sport coaching that enables me now to live a life of ease. I was a photogrpher when we got it right in camera & did not need to spend hours processing. A wedding took a couple of hours & one did 3 or 4 on a Saturday.

I dont agree with your comment re. getting it right in the camera and not needing to spend hours in processing.

I charge 4-5k per wedding, 20 a year, I get it right in the camera - but I also spend time processing/editing to further improve the photo to the highest standard of my creative work as possible.

In case you didnt know, getting it right in camera on RAW is not that hard to do, but deciding to print it straight out of camera is gonna leave the client with a very flat looking image and not deserving of the high price tag I charge. Im sure you ALSO have spent a lot of time in dark rooms in your days.

Times have changed, and quality of photography overall has improved, as well as client demands and expectations. Last weekend I did a 16 hour wedding, this week will be about 12 hours for 1 wedding, and so on. Impossible to find a wedding that is a few hours to fit in a few weddings on a Saturday like you mentioned. Unless it is rock bottom budget weddings for shoot and burn and charge for a few hundred dollars each, waste of time and effort and expenses.

[ricktas]

I always wondered why the wedding albums from the 70's were nothing to hold up as a shining example of how a wedding should have been shot.

Photography and the world have changed a HUGE amount since the 1970's. So have prices. I have a receipt for a brand spanking New 6cyl Holden Torana from 1971, it is $1100.00. A Commodore is today 30x that amount. Tony, what would have been 30x your wedding rate from the 1970's??

I don't think comparing rates from 40 years ago, or weddings, and processing requirements is a valid way to look at the questions this thread is about. I agree with Jacki, even in the 70's there was more to shooting a wedding than turning up for 2 hours.

Photographers today still have to get it right, in camera, no use presenting an out-of-focus photo as your best work. I would say the pressures on Wedding Photographers are much higher today than in the 70's as well. The expectations for the 'perfect day' have changed and demand a much higher level of attention to detail and quality. People have more income and are willing to spend more to get that 'perfect day' than they had in the 1970's.

But the whole point of this thread was to see where we see the appropriate lowest $ amount a wedding photographer should charge. A balance between price and quality. Looking at the results, it would seem that value for money and an expectation of good quality results happens between $1500 - $2500.

[geoffsta]

it would seem that value for money and an expectation of good quality results happens between $1500 - $2500.

After being at a wedding 4 months ago, and knowing the couple paid $2000 for their photographer. I think that <$2500 is get what you pay for.
The couple still haven't recieved their images, apart from a few low res ones they have got from the TOGs website. And from what I have seen of them, they are crap.

My son was a groomsman at one of his friends where the TOG was a friend of the family. They got a special rate for being friends of $4,000. The results were fantastic, considering the day was extremely windy and horrible.
They also got an album and around 200 shots that included all their guests, family and the shots you would expect from a wedding TOG. Normally this guy charges around $6,000. And gets plenty of work in the high society area.
I'd place this guy in the league of Dylan Toh and JMTran.

So if I was to choose a TOG for a wedding. I would expect to pay around $5,000. At least I know (After carefully researching him/her) that I'd get good results.

[jtsroberts]

Our photographer charged around $1500 - a bargain in my opinion. That was mates rates though, where he is normally charging around $2500.

I would have been happy to pay around the $3k mark. Having said that, the most important thing for me would be checking the photographers portfolio to ensure the quality was in line with our expectations.

[ktoopi]

I paid more than $5000 for my wedding photographer 11 years ago......we had a beautiful wood bound album made that stands about 50 cm high and came in it's own briefcase.....i stil LOVE the photos and the album. You get what you pay for most of the time but having said that .....the great wedding photographers had to start somewhere and they thet didn't all start out charging over $5000!!!

I got to meet one of Sydneys top wedding photographers last week as part of a course I am currently doing and his cheapest option is over $4000 for a shoot and burn. Just a DVD and nothing else. His comments to our class were that in his experience most of his clients don't come to him to just get a DVD but very occasionally they do so he offers that package but doesn't advertise it or promote it. His average client spends between $5000 - $10000 and he shoots more than 65 weddings a year!!
I think he's doing ok!!

[snappysi]

Can you name them / him ktoopi, would be interested to look at a port if one exists to see the standard of that price range.

Simon.