First Wedding Ever

[JoyPetersKurtz]

Ok guys, we're done here.

Whatever I wrote is now retracted. Let's pretend I offered no thoughts. Just move on.

Sheesh.

Joy

[MattRadlinski]

Joy, if it helps any, I agree with you.

I look at it like this. What we capture on the wedding day is going to last for the rest of the couple's lives, and their childrens' lives. These photos will still be around 100 years from now. How often do you spend $4,000 on something that lasts 100 years? I spent $20,000 on a car that will last 8 years, maybe.

We were at a wedding back in March and the couple had set up a table on which they set out their family tree in wedding portraits. They had their parents' portraits, their grandparents' portraits, and ALL EIGHT SETS of great-grandparents' portraits! I thought about those photographers, 70 years ago, who created those images, and I wondered if they knew that one day, the images they captured would be on a table at the wedding reception of this couple's great-grandchild. I would be so proud, if, 30 years after I'm dead, the images we created for that couple showed up at their great-grandchildren's wedding reception.

This is serious business. I consider wedding photography to be an awesome responsibility. There are no do-overs. There are no second chances. And there's a lot more to it than people think. I would recommend that anybody who wants to be a wedding photographer spend a few years apprenticing with another professional photographer. That way, you learn posing and lighting techniques, the order and flow of events, how to anticipate the action, and how to deal with all sorts of odd family situations. If it isn't worth your time and trouble to do those things, then you probably shouldn't be a wedding photographer.

I've said it before on this forum, and I'll say it again. I am so ashamed of the state of my profession. Wedding photographers have one of the worst reputations of any profession. At each reception we create a slideshow of the images we captured that day during and before the wedding. Guests will come up to us, amazed that we didn't screw up. They'll tell us horror stories about how the photographer at their sister's wedding was drunk, the photographer at their friend's wedding ruined all the pictures. Sure, our images are nice, but they're more amazed that wes simply didn't screw up! Do you ever hear anybody comment that they're amazed a doctor didn't kill a patient, or that they're amazed an engineer's bridge didn't fall down? Of course not. They expect the doctor to save the patient. They expect the engineer to build a solid bridge. So why do they expect a wedding photographer to screw up wedding photos?

The answer is simple...because there are so many people out there with a camera, two lenses and a flash who think they can photograph a wedding. So they charge $500 and do a horrible job and give the rest of us a bad name. Please, if you can't do the job right, don't do it at all.

[David_Willoughby]

" They'll tell us horror stories about how the photographer at their sister's wedding was drunk, the photographer at their friend's wedding ruined all the pictures"

I know that there are many times that this happens when the photographer is a "hack" or over their head. But I too hear these types of stories from people that went to a "professional" photographer, as in one that makes their living soley from weddings. a hack that screws up a wedding, specially if they get drunk, is a hack no matter how long they have been shooting. You don't have to have experience shooting a wedding to shoot one, you do have to know how to make the camera work, have an eye for lighting, composition, and some talent mixed in with skill. you do have to know how to please people, and above all give them the best service you possibly can. Wether you are shooting your 1st wedding or your 1001st (fifty weddings per year for 20 years), whetehr or not you shoot 1 or 50 a year, or charge $5000 or $500. what matters is do you have a professional attitude, demeaner, and ability to run the camera.

If I were asking advice with my ability I might ask more along the lines of...How would another photographer handle this situation. for example I might say "Matt, what is your work flow for scheduling the formals", or "I am shooting in X church with this type of light, I am looking for a different approach, can anyone offer some ideas?"

JMHO - Great discussion...and yes Matt, the industry is getting a bad rap and it is not from guys like you, or me or even Tony and Joy because we are willing to take the effort to ask and discuss because we are genuinely interested in honeing our skills!

[HGregoryPorter]

Matt, You're correct — This is a unique profession in many ways. Yet it's simliar for almost any "contractor" business. However, I don't agree that the unexperienced new comer gives a craftsman a bad name. What profession doesn't have it's share of people who are not yet performing at an acceptable level of competence? Brides that get hurt are generally the ones who are trying to get a bargain at a low price. But not always.

Somehow a photographer has to get his first experience. And in most of the areas, studio owners are reluctant to take on an apprentice. They have a great concern that they train them only to have them go into direct competition against them. And to some degree it's a legitimate concern.

I'm tired of hearing the local guild members complain about the "weekend warrior" stealing bread from their table. Many different economies exist. Who can "do it right" according to our standards at a $500 price? So does the bride with an inadequate budget deserve to have someone who is just starting out rather than being forced to set 20 disposables around for everyone to shoot a few wedding memories for them?

Some can't afford — others just do not want — to spent $4000 on photographs. If there is someone who is willing to give them something for $750, why should we knock the person who is just starting out and is willing to serve that market. Is the first timer going to do any job that I would consider acceptable? Only if you consider that they are providing a service that no seasoned pro would provide at that price.

I appreciate you and Joy being so aggressive in defending what a bride ought to have for her wedding memories. I frequently find that I place a higher value on photographs than most of my clients. If brides understood this I believe most would budget an adequate amount.

There is a need for a photographer to serve all the economies. Most of us would not go out the door for $500 let alone give any products. So I am quick to stand up against anyone who seemly is attacking a new comer to this profession.

I continue to cheer for the underdog instead of shouting that the general admission fans didn't have a great view of the ball game.

[MattRadlinski]

Greg,

I disagree with you on a few points. First, there are other ways to gain experience besides just jumping out and photographing a wedding. We have a few assistants who are training with us. We make them sign a contract that says they will not open a photography business in our town. Will it stand up in court? I don't know...but at least they understand that we don't want them competing with us. They can move somewhere else.

If you can't find someone to apprentice with in your town, look at the next town over. If it's not worth your time to drive 50 miles to the next town two or three saturdays out of the week to train, then you're probably not serious enough to be a wedding photographer. But, please, don't just jump out and start shooting (usually I use the word 'photographing,' but in this case, I think 'shooting' is more appropriate).

"I've got a scalpel and I'm really into medicine. I think I'd like to be a doctor, but I really don't want to move to a big town with a medical school and spend years training, so I think I'll just open up a practice on the side. Anyone want surgery for $500?"

The problem occurs when there are brides ignorant of photography who would spend $4,000, but spend $500 instead because they think they're getting a deal. That's hurts the industry.

[HGregoryPorter]

Matt,

I want to start by saying that I do not intend this response as argumentative, and I am not intending to ridicule your beliefs. I am also not going to continue responding because we have more important issues to discuss in our limited time. My views have changed. I used to hold closer to your claims. But 18 years of business, initially as a part-time photographer, have changed my views on the wedding market.

None of my $4000 and up bridal clients would have seriously considered a $500 photographer. They do not say: " I have $4000 but Oh, here is a real deal at $500". I am convinced my area is no different than other areas. I have had businesses in three different states over an 18 year period (Chattanooga, TN - Boca Raton, FL - Mobile Bay area in AL.) It has been the same in each area. There were $300-$500 photographers in each location.

ANYONE who chooses the $500 photographer is NOT A PROSPECT TO BE MY CLIENT. They would "never pay $4000 for a bunch of pictures".

The man who started this thread was not a newcomer looking for photographic experience. Neither did he spin his wedding experience to the bride. You are overlooking the fact that there is a market for low end weddings. The brides are not all "ignorant". All the educating them on the value of wedding photography in the world will not change the economic status of some couples. I cannot work with them, but I have no problem referring them to the part-time or new comer who will still do a better job than Uncle Joe. Many have told me how they wish that they could have afforded my product and appreciate me referring them. One bridal prospect recounted how she was mistreated by a photographer who became rude when she indicated that she only wanted to spend $1500. (His min. is $2500). The "give-up the gown if you have to" attitude doesn't draw people to you. Nor does it advance our profession.

I know a photographer in Colorado who has a friend who shoots two rolls of 35mm-24. He gives the bride all the proofs. His gross profit is $450 for 6 hours of work (4 hrs on wedding day and 2 hours post production) and is happy earning an additional $450 twelve to fifteen weekends per year. He is serving clients that you & I could not take care of. As for the quality of his work, he consistently gets reprint requests. Is he worth more? Maybe. But with his main overhead being depreciation on a set of used equipment, he has found a niche that no full time pro can serve. And he makes $70/hr for the time he invests.

I do not for one minute believe that this guy is hurting the profession nor is he hurting the business of the $4000 custom wedding pro; neither is he doing a disservice to the brides because he is not selling a pig in a poke.

Obviously there are a few bad apples in our profession. I do not know how your got your wedding experience prior to hanging out a shingle. I also do not know if your quality matches your price. I do congratulate you on starting out in a higher priced market and understanding that you can't run a business if all your costs of doing business are not covered. Many people don't understand the hidden costs.

BTW: Although I understand this is your opinion and you are not taking active measures, I'm sure you are aware that attempting to get people to raise their prices or get out of business is illegal and comes under price fixing statutes.

All that said, I do appreciate your conviction and passion for wanting all brides to have a beautiful collection of wedding images. Your clients will be well glad they did not go with a weekend warrior.

Michael I read the original post, that's why I started a new post because this one left the original post. I wished him good luck and gave a few pieces of advice, if you read what I stated, the bride is very aware of his credentials, so the ball is in her court. no further comment needed, that's what the new thread is for.