Wedding photography rates

[mikew09]

To be honest I see three distinct categories. Those in suburb weddings where all the bells and whistles are put on and no expense is spared, those on a true budget where costs here and there have to be controlled, and those in the country where weddings range from really bare base to a modest wedding. The bottom line is in these few cases the the budget for the cost of a photographer fell well below the scope of what might be considered normal. At the end of the day if they cant get a photographer for under $700 they just simple wont hire one and then put some blind faith in the happy snappers attending the wedding. Yes, as horrifying at this is it does occur and the pair really dont have a great expectation of what a wedding photography may deliver. There is a market there, possibly one only to be filled by an amateur photography of relative experience who is simple happy to chase a few bucks to help fund the hobby. I think there lies the issue and a good basis for the term "you get what you pay for". But in extending this thread discussion - would a pro really care if amateurs were cutting these gigs and providing suitable photos that capture the day? I would think not.

[kiwi]

it's really quite hard to compare rates, some just do shoot & burns, some do albums, some make their money of post wedding sales.

[ROA44]

I advised my daughter to get a professional photographer, as when I had my wedding done we used someone under family pressure, who was an acquaintance of the family and we were disappointed with the results. As a result we really had no financial claim. However with a professional you have a chance they will have insurance and a chance of compensation against if they,(1) don't show up, (2) For Got rolled up Late, (3) Drunk (4) No Film / Memory card, (5) Faulty Equipment, (6) Loose/wipe the card. 2 & 3 was a Professional at my first daughters wedding fortunately still came away with some good shots not totally drunk but certainly had a few. + what ever other excuses they come up with. So in my opinion try to get someone who has done a good number of shoots, has a proven record,isn't about to go out of business and whose price fits the budget + a little extra for good luck. If you then think it's worth paying the extra go for it.I am sure members of AP who regularly do weddings can relate the I only wish I had got a reputable/professional to do the job.

[NikonNellie]

I voted under $5000. After doing a shoot and burn wedding for a friend's daughter I came to realise how much hard work a good wedding photographer puts in to get to the final result. I presented the couple with over 500 images - all post processed which meant a lot of time spent at my computer. Sure, with experience I could get much quicker/refined both with the actual shooting and the processing but it would still be a lot of my time, my creativity and my my skill at getting the right images.

Luckily, with 34 years of marriage under my belt, I am not likely to have to pay a tog for wedding images.

[Fedgrub]

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

I agree with this. Had a similar discussion with a friend recently, where you get what you pay for but unless you know how consistent the photographer is, anything over $2,500 seems a bit excessive.

[Cocoajam]

I agree that you do usually get what you paid for, but sometimes I think that you don't. I have seen packages that cost friends big bucks, and the print they put on the wall has a park bench coming out of the grooms back. Sometimes you get more than you paid for. Someone touched on that when you get a "starter" to do your work for a low cost - they just might not be able to charge the big bucks because they don't have a name yet....

I did my friend's wedding recently - my second wedding only (the first was a disaster, but i was emotionally blackmailed into it before I thought I was ready) - with no charge to them because of my lack of experience. It was a lot of work, but I think I did a pretty good job given I was shooting in the midday, summer sun! I have offered the wedding album as a wedding present, at least that way I still have some control over how they are presented (for future viewing potential). It was a lot of work, and next time I think I will charge something, depending on what the clients want.

[John Witte]

Soon as you say wedding, everythng goes up. The cake, photographer and everything else that goes with it.

[zollo]

photographing and delivering a good quality wedding photography package is legitimately hard work and long hours. those who say otherwise know not of what they speak.

[ricktas]

Soon as you say wedding, everythng goes up. The cake, photographer and everything else that goes with it.

True. But remember most people getting married also want absolute perfection. That comes at a price. Brides can often be the most demanding client anyone has to deal with.. ever.

[nimrodisease]

I got married 3 years ago, and we spent about $1700 on the photographer.

For our money we got:

• Photographer at the bride's house in the morning
• Two photographers at the ceremony
• Family photos etc
• Location shoot between ceremony and reception
• Photographer for full length of reception
• 'Crazy booth' at the reception
• Engagement shoot several months before the wedding, before we'd even engaged the photographer for the wedding
• DVDs of all hi-res images (including engagement shoot and crazy booth)
• 200 prints at 5x7 (we chose which shots we wanted printed)

We got about 1000 images in total, all of them edited and all of them great photos (some exceptional).

Needless to say, we were very happy with what we got. Maybe his prices have gone up now, I don't know, but I would certainly recommend Ben Adams to anyone: http://www.benadamsweddings.com/

[JM Tran]

I got married 3 years ago, and we spent about $1700 on the photographer.

For our money we got:

• Photographer at the bride's house in the morning
• Two photographers at the ceremony
• Family photos etc
• Location shoot between ceremony and reception
• Photographer for full length of reception
• 'Crazy booth' at the reception
• Engagement shoot several months before the wedding, before we'd even engaged the photographer for the wedding
• DVDs of all hi-res images (including engagement shoot and crazy booth)
• 200 prints at 5x7 (we chose which shots we wanted printed)

We got about 1000 images in total, all of them edited and all of them great photos (some exceptional).

Needless to say, we were very happy with what we got. Maybe his prices have gone up now, I don't know, but I would certainly recommend Ben Adams to anyone: http://www.benadamsweddings.com/

From my pro wedding point of view, you were lucky to get him at that price. The photographer obviously charged very little and even provided 200 prints at 5x7 inch, which took a small chunk out of his overall $1700. Not to mention the photo booth set up.

I dont mind people providing all of these services, but when you are providing a lot and charging what is perceived to be undercutting the wedding industry, it does no service to other working pros, and overall leads to brides or couples expecting the same for less and less gradually.

Then again, everyone has different levels of satisfaction, one may be satisfied with the work provided at 1700 or 3000 etc, others may not think the quality is of a high standard etc.

At the end of the day, if the couple is happy then its all good, well most of the time. It also helps if the photographer in any genre charges appropriately and not under value their own self worth and product. Because in the long run, it is not sustainable.

[Warbler]

The costs charged for wedding photography are necessarily high because the fixed component is high to start with. Firstly, wedding photographers have to have more than one camera and two lenses. Generally they will have at least two bodies, and more likely three, when they shoot. They will have lenses for low light, so expensive glass, with overlapping FL's for redundancy. They will have two and possible three speedlites. Add into this the costs of their computer gear at home, including the software, the advertising they must do to let people know they're there, divide it by the number of weddings they do each year, and the cost of even turning up is already quite high. Don't forget they also must have back built-in to store the images until they are handed over to the client.

Weekend warriors tend not to add all that in as many just shoot for the price of new gear and a holiday at the end of the year. Many weekenders are very good too, but the trick is picking what suits your needs and peace of mind.

[Tony B]

The 12-16 hour wedding is a modern phenomenon started by some bright photographer who realised they only needed to do one wedding & earn a week's income. To justify their price they supply 500 + images &/or take photos over several days. This is a sign of the times & obviously demand driven.
The whole wedding industry is $$$ driven & some fools & their money easily parted.
My son, in London, was recently asked to attend a Bucks night for which the cost was 1500 pounds STERLING. After the wedding guests were to be flown by private jet to Kenya for the reception . The world has gone mad with the competition to see who can spend the most on a wedding.
I would agree that $1500-$2500 is a reasonable price & for less "let the buyer beware".
If the photographer does a bad job it would probably cost more to take them to court.



Canon 1DX, 1DIII, 5DIII, 24-70vII, 70-200vII, 300 f2.8 L IS, 500f4 L IS, 100 macro, 14mm Samyang.

[Erin]

Price does not equal quality.

Photographer skill equals quality.

My wedding photos are a prime example of how a $3000/six hours wedding photographer who has been in the industry for 20+ years can provide dodgy images. This is in comparison to the guy I paid $1500 to have for a whole weekend on the coast to shoot me in a "trash the dress" type of session. At the time he was very much a beginner and had only just started in the 18 months preceding that. His photographs are the images I pull out when showing people my "wedding" pictures. They are beautiful.

His prices now start at around the $3000 mark and he's been shipped all over the country and internationally to shoot weddings, such is the quality of the work he produces. He could charge a hell of a lot more if he wanted to and I'd pay him every cent.

My other wedding photos have not made it out of the box they came in more than twice and that was since 2008.

Definitely not disagreeing with other comments here but I quickly learned to look at it from a completely different perspective after my experience.

[JDFSandH]

We looked around the 2000 to 2500 mark for ours but settled at just over 3000 because we were picky. The photographer we loved had his price. We were happy to pay it. We travelled around the state a bit, interviewed heaps and just weren't happy with anyone else. But we are super picky with everything we do, not just our wedding. We had him for 10 hours. He shot me and the girls getting ready and my husband and the guys (both were on site at the venue but separate areas). Shot a private ceremony (we eloped at our own wedding), then the actual ceremony. Did bridal party shots. Then the entire reception. Finished with location shots. 2 shooters for the whole lot. We also did an engagement shoot which he used the photos from to make up an album that was used as the guest book at the wedding. What made him priceless on the day though, he took care of everything. Was on the phone the a lot, organising the cars when to pick us up, giving cues to the celebrant etc. Even climbing through the bushes to locate my husband when he lost track of time and forgot to turn up to the forst ceremony. We had 30 odd kids at the wedding which was entirely outdoors, and he kept them all interested in what he was doing when getting group pics.

Also, his photos are outstanding. We skimped on a lot of other stuff as the photos were a big deal for us. Still happy with our decision.
My husbands cousin did a budget wedding and paid $500 for a mate to photograph. They are always telling everyone else who gets married not to skimp on a photographer. They aren't happy with their pics at all.

[CapnBloodbeard]

I got married 3 years ago, and we spent about $1700 on the photographer.

For our money we got:

• Photographer at the bride's house in the morning
• Two photographers at the ceremony
• Family photos etc
• Location shoot between ceremony and reception
• Photographer for full length of reception
• 'Crazy booth' at the reception
• Engagement shoot several months before the wedding, before we'd even engaged the photographer for the wedding
• DVDs of all hi-res images (including engagement shoot and crazy booth)
• 200 prints at 5x7 (we chose which shots we wanted printed)

We got about 1000 images in total, all of them edited and all of them great photos (some exceptional).

Needless to say, we were very happy with what we got. Maybe his prices have gone up now, I don't know, but I would certainly recommend Ben Adams to anyone: http://www.benadamsweddings.com/

Heh, he was one of the 'togs we interviewed when choosing our photographer, but I ultimately went with somebody else. His prices have gone up a fair bit since then....like, several times what you paid.

My wedding's coming up very soon....overall I wasn't overly happy with the engagement shoot, seemed to be below his usual standard, so I guess that makes me a bit nervous for the wedding photography now....

[nimrodisease]

Heh, he was one of the 'togs we interviewed when choosing our photographer, but I ultimately went with somebody else. His prices have gone up a fair bit since then....like, several times what you paid.

Interesting to know... I've been following his facebook page for a little while now and noticed that he's moved toward a more 'vintage' style - pushed contrast, but with no blacks and no whites kind of thing. Our wedding shots (and most of his portfolio back when we hired him) were a more traditional kind of high contrast, with plenty of blacks and whites.

My wedding's coming up very soon....overall I wasn't overly happy with the engagement shoot, seemed to be below his usual standard, so I guess that makes me a bit nervous for the wedding photography now....

That is a bit of a shame really.. it's always hard to know for sure - some people are very good at picking and choosing the shots they put in their portfolio. Hopefully he just had an off day though...

[CapnBloodbeard]

Interesting to know... I've been following his facebook page for a little while now and noticed that he's moved toward a more 'vintage' style - pushed contrast, but with no blacks and no whites kind of thing. Our wedding shots (and most of his portfolio back when we hired him) were a more traditional kind of high contrast, with plenty of blacks and whites.

Yeah, we avoided most photographers with that sort of style which seems a little trendy at the moment, but we still liked his enough to interview him.

That is a bit of a shame really.. it's always hard to know for sure - some people are very good at picking and choosing the shots they put in their portfolio. Hopefully he just had an off day though...

Oh, I'm well aware of that. That's why if a photographer wasn't able to supply a full day's worth of shots (eg blog page on their site) from several shots, then they'd be scratched off the list immediately. I'm not interested in a portfolio - whether somebody has managed to come up with 20 awesome shots over the last few years is completely meaningless.

My mum's photographer had a great portfolio, but was an utterly incompetent photographer.

[freelancer]

Wow Ive seen people turn pale when you mention $600, suppose thats the difference not living in the city.
Jon