Hi all - not understanding these prices here so if someone can clarify that would be great.
My fiancé and I are getting quoted between $8500 and $11,000 dollars to have both a photographer and videographer. Without the videographer, it’s roughly $5-$6K. Do they charge this much just because it’s a wedding? I’ve been hearing that most of the time is taken up by editing the photos? I mean why the F are you editing photos? I hired you to take RAW photos god damn it.
Anyway is this right?
This getting downvoted amazes me. People need to understand this is how capatilism works. Nothing is priced based on what it costs to produce. Nothing.
Competition should push the price down so people don't earn abnormal profits. These questions like why do wedding photos cost so much? I find it better to think why am I not a wedding photographer at $6k an event?
Yes in theory, a photographer could sit down and work out how much it costs to do a wedding and go I'll charge $1k more for profit. But I can guarantee they never do that and the price will be a lot lower if they did. They look around and go everyone is charging $10k so I'll charge $10k or a bit less to fill up my calendar. Then they do it for the cheapest they can work out how to do it. That's how it works.
So with no knowledge of the industry, you're telling us that the price that they're all competing at in the market isn't the natural baseline of what it takes to earn a living as a wedding photographer, but instead they're all setting an arbitrarily high amount that they just all copy?
I suppose you could apply this sort of argument to anything you didn't know about, though, right? If you have no idea what it costs to run a restaurant, you assume the only reason they charge $25 for a burger is all the other restaurants do too?
@iDroid: Yes, exactly.
Unless you have evidence of actual industry-wide collusion (OPEC, etc), the assumption should be the market price has been set because that's what the people working in the industry are making a (fair) living charging.
Of course you get inexperienced naysayers like the comment below mine like "food work is hard work chief, unlike those photographers and lawyers, food guys work so much harder than everyone else does, photographers just fleece people for everything they can get away with".
Oh okay sure, the food services thing you're clearly more familiar with has a lot of nuance and fairness in its pricing, but the lawyer guys are just lazy villains in suits who provide nothing of value.
food guys work so much harder than everyone else does, photographers just fleece people for everything they can get away with".
Food guys also charge what they can get away with, just that they find it harder to get away with as much.
These standards are not completely but still largely arbitrary. Enough people go along with it and it becomes a standard.
the price that they're all competing at in the market isn't the natural baseline of what it takes to earn a living
You think the same about lawyers?
Some people make a living, some make a killing. The former most usually involves harder work.
$25 for a burger
Quite cheap when you factor in everything and compare to alternatives like photography and law. Food is usually a tough game with low margins, and bloody hard work.
You think the same about lawyers?
Lawyers are a protect industry. There are absolutely massive barriers to industry.
Anyone with a camera can have a go at shooting weddings. Its as close to a free market as is possible to exist. Zero barriers to entry.
@rumblytangara: No it isn’t. Just about anyone can get a law degree these days. It used to be a protected industry back in the 1970s and 1980s.. It’s bloody difficult to make a lot of money as a lawyer now. You’re usually better off doing a trade, being an engineer or a decent programmer.
@ankor: Isn't an LLB still 4 years and JD is undergrad+3 years? Then a year for internship, so 5-7 years, all it the last year with zero income? If that's still the case, I'd call that a high barrier to entry.
Versus thinking with a high-ish end camera in your spare time and then trying to charge for it. Someone might be an absolute crap photographer, but they can still call themselves a photographer.
@Crow K: I think the point is that the pricing decisions are not made based on input costs alone. They will charge based on the market, but above their costs?* That can mean charging $10k if their costs are $2k, or $5k if their costs are $4500 because they're an individual making business decisions, and their motivations are complex. Fundamentally they will likely try to maximise profit without charging too much to be competitive - as would you or I.
*Other than when starting out perhaps, or if it will lead to profitable work.
you assume the only reason they charge $25 for a burger is all the other restaurants do too?
Yes.
Why does a burger cost $25 in a CBD location with $8000 p/m rent, and $25 from a food truck parked in a carpark?
Economics attempts to explain a system that is the product of human behaviour. Economic theories should always be tempered by thinking though the behavioural impacts, the theories are intentionally reductive to demonstrate a concept. Economic modelling is based on applying mathematical regression to observed data because attempting to apply theoretical frameworks to real life - as you are doing - results in garbage
@Crow K: In my industry (litigation) we all charge an arbitrary rate which is the highest we can get away with. There's some competition at the low end but not at the high end. I suspect wedding photography, being a luxury item as it is, has the same pricing system.
I've hiked my fees by a cumulative 30% in the last 3 years just because I can.
I suppose you could apply this sort of argument to anything you didn't know about, though, right?
Yes. That's how everything works. Everyone charges as much as they can. Why would a photographer or a burger restaurant take $20/h if they could make $60/h?
@Alice McGregor: It's shallow interpretation of motivations that doesn't meaningfully add to a pricing discussion
Why did oil prices change so vastly in 1973?
"Because people get away with whatever prices they can!"
Oh good, you've identified The Reason Why Things Happen, here's your Nobel Prize in Economics, etc etc.
And to highlight this for the final time, this person crossed out a list of factors in photographer pricing to instead proudly tell the rest of us all the proclamation that "people want as much profit as possible", because why would we be discussing those when there's such brilliant insights like that, right?
I find it better to think why am I not a wedding photographer at $6k an event?
Because you will realise it's not worth it once you account for the following:
Gear and gear up keep
Second and maybe third shooters usually
Insurances
Super/tax
Travel time
Labour time (usually talking sorting and filtering through thousands+ of photos)
Years (usually) of learning the craft/developing a style
Marketing
Consult fees
Software (Adobe, Dropbox or whatever cloud solution) etc
@besttechadvisor: Yeah, you'd think those would be factors, but as a counterpoint, scroll up to this high level piece of analysis
(Oh no! We are trapped in an infinite loop of the politics of envy)
@Crow K: They are factors, though. There's still a floor. To use an extreme example to prove that there's a floor, you wouldn't accept $5/day because it wouldn't cover your living expenses before you even consider operating expenses.
$6k wouldn't cover be worthwhile for a professional photographer with all the expenses I've noted.
@bp2000 said "Nothing is priced based on what it costs to produce" but that's not strictly true. You need to be profitable for sustainability. After that, yes, you price based on what you think you can get for your product/service, but profitability is the jumping-off point…
… unless you want to start talking about things like loss leaders, but that's not relevant to a wedding photographer.
@besttechadvisor: Not to mention dealing with the customer service side, drunk family members, over the top family members, crazy brides and grooms.. honestly, that alone would make me want to upcharge like crazy.
@besttechadvisor: That list is missing one important factor - "Having to deal with Bridezilla Et Al"
People need to understand this is how capatilism [sic] works.
Wow, preaching from somebody who does not even know what the word means.
Tradesmen and artisans charging for their work predates capitalism by thousands of years. And the economics of supply and demand apply.
If a photographer could work on weddings 40 hours a week, it would be much cheaper, but everyone wants to marry at the same time.
It is the same reason a Thredbo apartment is expensive in August.
This is an important limiting factor. You are not going to see more people become professional photographers just to fill weekend demand at $100/hr.
But there are plenty of talented amateur photographers, and I'll be some will be happy to attend your wedding for a few hundred dollars. It might not be simple to find one, and vet their work, but it will be worth it!
@bargaino: Not sure I really understand this.
A good photographer has a variety of different work not just weddings. There is nothing stopping you from filling up your entire week.
Plenty of weddings are on weekdays as the wedding industry in general often has discount rates for weekdays.
@samfisher5986: Have you known many professional photographers?
The ones I've known tend to specialise either in weddings cause they can handle the faffing around, or they go into a mix of other areas.
I've never met one that does weddings on weekends and industrial/commercial the rest of the time.
Admittedly my sample size isn't big, but from this entire thread I'm getting the impression that you don't know professional photographers.
@rumblytangara: I've met many wedding photographers through expos and wedding showcases. Yes these people only specialise in weddings and I've generally found on average they are lower skilled and have about a 30-50% premium. I imagine they only do weddings because all the efforts at gaining clients are focused on that.
For example some of them run competitions where you can win a free wedding photography package but it seems nobody wins and they just send everyone the 2nd place prize where they pretend to offer you something for free to reel you in or offer you a discount on one of their expensive packages which in reality just brings their pricing down to more sane levels.
Outside of that most photographers will also do event/corporate photography based on what I've seen.
I've met many wedding photographers through expos and wedding showcases. Yes these people only specialise in weddings and I've generally found on average they are lower skilled and have about a 30-50% premium. I imagine they only do weddings because all the efforts at gaining clients are focused on that.
Maybe that's the difference. I know photographers personally rather than briefly meeting people trying to flog their services at expos. If you are meeting people via industry expos, you are meeting the desperate low end.
The good wedding photographers don't need to advertise to drum up business. They are referred via word of mouth and I've known good ones to have long waiting lists.
The commercial photographers that I have known personally or worked alongside avoid weddings like the plague- the money can good, but the skillset of managing large crowds of people and being nice all day is something they have no interest in. These are people who specialise in things like extreme sports photography, or industrial sites- factories, mines, shipyards, or news photography (riots). At a stretch they might do corporate portraiture for C level, but they often work in environments where someone used to weddings wouldn't have a clue.
"Nothing is priced based on what it costs to produce. Nothing."
Except for automotive OEM suppliers, we had to show margins
.
Haven't seen a better example of Dunning Kruger for a long time.
I've never been paid to be a photographer, even though I've shot weddings as the primary photographer. But I've known and worked alongside professional photographers (usually not weddings- commerical/industrial because they dislike the BS ego massaging that comes with that line of work) and the amount of work that goes into it as well as the skill is very impressive.
@rumblytangara: It's just the bogan mindset really - anyone doing better than you probably has an arbitrary advantage (that only exists because it's ridiculous) and anything that differs from your worldview is just bullshit.
Uni? Just daycare for rich kids, yeah.
Tax agents? What, they get paid just for knowing some tax laws that I could have looked up anyway, mate.
Foreign films? People just want to impress their w-nk-r friends.
Lawyers? All shonks, no way someone earns that much legit, it's just a closed shop and they charge what they want.
Photographers? Anyone can do that, the camera does all the work anyway.
And so on, and on. Usually at a barbecue.
If you don't see the value of something, there's never going to be a reasonable price for it.
@CommuterPolluter: Aren't you the thirsty unit who made the "hey guys who seriously likes Snoop Dogg I just want to know" forum post?
What's wrong lil bro, not enough engagement on the tablet right now?
What's wrong lil bro, not enough engagement on the tablet right now?
Copping that from a 3,300 comment profile is like a pot calling the kettle black
@CommuterPolluter: oh my god, you're also the "hey guys, is the w word for greeks offensive?" AND the "fellas, is the swatstika offensive"? thought-provoker
you know if you eat all the low hanging fruit today there won't be anything for your lunch tomorrow, right?
@-me when you're asking the community how it feels about pineapple on pizza, you're doing great.
look at this delicious provocative bait, because unless you say so otherwise, people will accept "bogan" is a racist word
now you're just being annoying.
more annoying than usual, I mean.
@CommuterPolluter: oh, my loss. however will I weigh in on the "if we're all equal now, should we hold the door open for women" topic next week?
you know if you eat all the low hanging fruit today there won't be anything for your lunch tomorrow, right?
I have to remember this line.
@CommuterPolluter: Initially thought you were joking. But probably not.
Were you joking?
First time I've ever come across sometime trying to play the PC racism card with Bogan.
@rumblytangara: Every person I’ve met who denigrates people as “bogans” invariably hates people of a particular racial background. It’s a dogwhistle.
here's my anecdotal evidence to support my point
Haha now I got him
and my observations were invariable
OH (profanity) HE GOT ME (knocks chess pieces off board, flips it and storms off to sulk)
@rumblytangara: Every person I’ve met who denigrates people as “bogans” invariably hates people of a particular racial background. It’s a dogwhistle.
Uh… let's unpack this: Are you saying that Bogan = White (because Bogan is an Aussie term, and most but not all bogans are going to be white) and that anyone who says Bogan hates white people?
That's the dumbest mental leap of the week.
This is exactly the same as saying Americans who use the term Redneck hate white people. And most people who use the term redneck are… white.
@rumblytangara: Like when a person from the north complains about “transients” which is frequently used a racist dogwhistle for hatred against the Aboriginal peoples of this land. I’m sorry but we all know what you really mean.
If you don't see the value of something, there's never going to be a reasonable price for it.
Dude, I have, or have skin in, a number of businesses. They are mostly disparate in what they sell. I can tell you that each gets away with charging what it can to different success. I can have a shoebox sized parcel sell for 3x more than a pallet of goods even though the pallet has significantly higher input costs.
Sometimes I consult - I charge differently according to a number of factors, (a big) one being what I think they will bear.
It's all based on the reputation of the field/market being served. It's always about getting what you can get away with.
@fantombloo: The wording "getting away with what you can get away with" is frankly the weirdest bit.
Things like supply and demand setting prices in a market between willing participants is basic economic theory, and like all compromises, the basis behind how society works.
You're stripping away all the underlying logic and calculations behind pricing mechanisms (if a photographer has $X expenses in a year, it will mean he will need to charge at least $Y) to go with the cookie cutter sentence "people just want to get away with what they can get away with".
Cool, thanks, you've explained their motivations via a truism.
Meanwhile, we've been discussing the factors that affect their pricing decisions.
You haven't contributed to our discussion in a meaningful way. We already knew people want the most profit possible.
if a photographer has $X expenses in a year, it will mean he will need to charge at least $Y
No sh1t?
@fantombloo: Yeah, and look at how you responded when people starting listing the factors that justify the high price a photographer charges.
Drew a big line through it all and proudly announced to us "hey guys they just want to charge as much as they can get away with"
You're the No Sh1t Sherlock of this thread. You got downvoted to oblivion because of how facile your contribution was.
Things like supply and demand setting prices in a market between willing participants is basic economic theory, and like all compromises, the basis behind how society works.
You seem to miss the part where the theory only holds between participants of equal bargaining power. These are not realistic scenarios. The economics textbook does not replace reality
@greatlamp: What is unequal about the photography market? In any major city, there are thousands of buyers and independent sellers. There is little to no information asymmetry either- photographers are general sole traders and provide portfolios to look at.
Close to zero barriers to entry or exit. It's remarkably close to a perfectly free market.
We're not talking oligopolies like Colesworth, or giant insurance companies with opaque pricing algorithms.
There is little to no information asymmetry
Does a bride looking for a photographer know all the photographers in the market? Does the bride know their costs? The lowest price they will do the job for?
The economics textbook describes reductive scenarios, but you already knew that
When i was a wedding photographer, i would take around 1000+ photos an event (4-8 hours), often spending between 15-30 seconds per photo to edit. Thats another 4 hours+. Ai and outsourcing may change this.
Canera gear investment between 10-15k.
I never charged the top rates, so it was not worth my time.
We aren't even taking into account experience and skill associated with being a good photographer.
I think it is reasonable to charge extra or not offer raw photos. This should be in the contract.
You edited 1000 photos?
How many did the client get.
How much couod you sell your equipment for
Yeah, don't know what you got downvoted for. Editing 1000 photos is a complete lie.
I did not downvote you, all reasonsble questions.
For context this is ~10 years ago, and i stopped mainly because i did not enjoy the editing/career/work commitments/financial reward. I was never charging top rates, as I was relatively young and new to the scene. Several of my friends/colleagues continued and have gone on to be very successful in the photography industry.
1) Yes, consistently. I did many South Asian weddings that obviously are longer and larger than traditional church/celebrant weddings. There is more to weddings than walking down the isle. Some sell packages including various shoots before/after the actual wedding.
2) between 200-400, just because im not editing a photo, does not mean it does not take time to load it, assess it's credibility and edit/skip. I had a high end gaming/editting PC, but it still lagged.
3) Now? Almost nothing, back then 50-70% rrp. Potentially some lenses hold value. Most have been updated. I sold most of my L lenses and they held value pretty well. The body will depreciate more than 50%.
Im not sure how the new equiptment (lenses) will hold value given the drop in demand, mirrorless and upgraded tech etc.
I used a 1Dm3, 5Dii, 85L, 24-70L, 70-200L, 200L during that period from memory.
Anyway, it's a tough job especially in summer, editting is a bore. I agree that $8000k+ is getting pretty ridiculous, so justify it.
At the end of the day. Despite disruption from everyones phone having a camera on them. They still get jobs. There's a reason.
Now wedding painters… they are amazing! Wish I knew how much they cost.
You got downvoted by all the wedding photographer grifters for telling the truth.
well, if you think phones take amazing photos worthy of wedding photography - you sure as heck aren't my customer.
The idea of comparing phone photos vs what I produce at a wedding with Canon R5's and Fuji GFX100's is hilarious.
And that's just gear only - let alone skill & experience.
Thanks for the entertainment.
@gavincato: I always assume people that think phone photos look good either have some sort of problem with their eyes or just can't appreciate anything nice.
@samfisher5986: I can buy a camera for a fraction of the price quoted, set the white balance, leave everything else on auto and do the same job. $5K for a day's work is lol worthy.
@Vita85: I'm not sure why you are replying to me.
I do think a good camera + skill is most of the job.
@Vita85: well, go do it then? Especially with just one camera right? I guess it's not a thing to worry about to have one camera and have it die on a job - Silly me with my 4-5 cameras at each wedding.
Enjoy your 5k each day! Sounds easy!
@gavincato: Yea folks out there thinking good camera automatically = pro photographer lol
Or the ones that thinks editing is like a one click magic button.
You got downvoted by all the wedding photographer grifters for telling the truth.
If you think that's the reason he was downvoted, you clearly have no idea what his post history is like. He's 100% confidently wrong about pretty much everything on any topic.
Software
sunk cost.
No, it's a depreciating cost if bought as a perpetual license. Or a recurring cost of a subscription which is more common these days. Not a sunk cost.
How TF do people misunderstand accounting 101 terms here? Did people not go to uni?
It's just idiots repeating what they've heard before to sound smart.
@Phoenixzeus: Minor correction:
It's just idiots repeating what they've heard before to sound smart ignorant AF.
Seriously, what moron thinks that a software license for a business is a 'sunk cost'. It's a tax expense, and possibly a recurring one.
Definitely shop around OP. You might find someone cheaper but it means quality might also not be to your liking. Check photographer portfolio and select. Also don’t pay all in one go. Congrats and all the best.
Photos are edited because they look way better than RAW ones. It takes time.
Agree with this point about shopping around. We went to one photographer in a fancy area in Sydney who wanted to charge a fortune and had photos that were blurry in their portfolio!! So bad that we even declined a free engagement shoot with them.
Photographer we ended up with didn't necessarily "present well" - wasn't a smooth seller of himself, but we LOVED his photos and 2 other friends used him after our wedding based on the photos he took for us.
He was about 4k less than similar quality photographers
We chose to just have the pictures and have a friend video the ceremony - we just chose what was more important to us.
That photo edit for your average wedding photographer is done in bulk with a few clicks.
A good professional photographer will put the time in per photo, but many don't.
Didn’t know that .
It's called batch processing or money for jam depending on the photographer.
@MS Paint: I wouldn't have thought the same settings could be applied to every photo though - there would have to be changes for each group of photos wouldn't there?
@kiitos: The batch processing does say 80% of the correcting. Individual photos will then need minor tweaks in exposure etc, possibly some masking and cropping/levelling to go the rest of the way.
Isn’t it just colour grading? Can spend as much or as little time as you want doing it.
Yes thats mostly it, you can always edit it further with various effects etc
Back in the days of film, photographers retained the physical negatives and were able to earn income from publishing enlargements and albums for their clients. In this digital era, the client is the copyright owner (unless you agree alternative arrangements) so photographers charge based on the total cost of imaging your event. You may want them to edit the photos because they're professionals; unless of course you have this proficiency in which case you may be able to negotiate accordingly. I have seen watermarked digital wedding images before but I don't believe this is common practice.
I think you are wrong about the copyright thing. Unless otherwise agreed, the copyright is retained by the photographer.
If you were commissioned to take photos for a wedding, or any other private or domestic use, your client will own copyright, unless you reached an agreement to the contrary. Australian Copyright Council Factsheet, 09 Jan 2024: Photography & Copyright A relative got married earlier this year and I was chatting with the photographer to learn how things now operate.
Looks like you are right.
Generally you agree to a variation of this, or at least a competent photographer will, otherwise after the wedding you can not pay the remaining amount and demand the photos
unless you reached an agreement to the contrary
Agreement to the contrary could be as simple as signing the standard photographer's contract.
@AustriaBargain: Yeah, when I was doing Wedding Photography my standard contract said something to the effect of "I retain the copy right. You have the right to distribute the photos for personal consumption, such as on your personal social media accounts. You must not use the photos for commercial purposes. I can use the photos for promoting my services."
@besttechadvisor: How much extra would you charge to give the client full rights and all raw/working files? Or to share those full rights so you both "own" it all?
@AustriaBargain: It honestly never came up, so I never considered it.
If they simply didn't want me to use the photos in my marketing, I would respect that without charging anything - it's only in the agreement to cover my butt.
If they're wanting to use it commercially, it would probably be because they're trying to do something dodgy with getting their business to pay for their wedding as a 'corporate event' for tax purposes, in which case I'd give them my corporate event agreement where I bill by the hour for all the work involved (consultations, travel, photo processing, etc). Obviously, that makes it a lot more variable. If I were to charge my hourly rate for the amount of work I put into a wedding, I'd probably make 30% more, as a rough guess.
I guess it's like when you pay a tradie by the hour vs contract for a set time period.
@besttechadvisor: What's it got to do with you what someone does after they've paid you the amount you've quoted for your services? Them claiming the amount as a corporate event for tax purposes doesn't impact you in any way, does it?
What's it got to do with you what someone does after they've paid you the amount you've quoted for your services?
Just like music, movies, etc, photographers charge more for distribution rights.
Them claiming the amount as a corporate event for tax purposes doesn't impact you in any way, does it?
No, it wouldn't affect me in a meaningful way.
@rumblytangara: I'm guessing any wedding clients rich enough to afford to buy out the rights probably would rather just keep paying the photographer or studio for anything they need in the future anyway, for convenience.
@AustriaBargain: I think my photographer retained IP, but she literally didn't give a toss what I did with them (nobody is interested wedding photos except the couple and maybe their parents), and gave me both the Photoshopped and the RAWs. Friend of my brother.
Which is a pho king scam in order to extract more money from you. They are hired to capture the even and to hand over the images to you for your possession. Photographers who claim copyright for images they are hired to take for you a the lowest form of crooks. It would be like the camera operator for a big movie claiming copyright ownership of the movie because they are the ones pressing the record button. I have seen photographers do an event then putting the images on an image purchasing platform for the guests to pay per photo . What BS is that.
Soon as you mention wedding for a photographer the $$$$$ just light up and they just inflate thier service fees by at least a factor of 20. why should the service cost be inflated because the event is a wedding or not . You should be paid what is required to meet the brief.
It should be reasonable that each photographer be compensated around 200-300 an hour to do an event, that should be more than enough to cover thier time, pay for thier expertise and cover thier ongoing capital investments in equipment and operating costs of thier business. so for a 10 hour commitment that should be $3000 per photographer and for an event like a wedding 2 photographers should be adequate. Of course if there are other services offered like editing and post production sure but that should be optional. A photographer needs to be able to capture the moment first and foremost.
When hiring the photographer always as for ALL the raws good and bad to be handed over and none of this them owning the copyright BS
This comment assumes all photogs are equal skill. It's not just pushing a button on a camera all day. There is so much that goes into it that you aren't even beginning to grasp.
@gavincato: This applies to any service provider in any industry of course not all are of equal skills . Yes you are hired to provide a service , that is to take professional photos of a higher standard than an ordinary hack and also hand over the photos that you have been asked to take. I still stand by my comments of 200-300 an hour is fair compensation for this skill and service. of course if you are "Elite" and a "Creative photographic genius" you may warrant a higher fee.
Just like Elite Doctors are payed higher rates than ordinary good enough doctors.
No way would I hand over all work. You have to curate what's given to the client or you'll find your worst shot being used against you or held to ridicule on facebook. It happens!
@mauricem: thats what you are paid to do, shoot and provide the photos that a shot. not to onsell or monetise the photos like some dodgy marketplace. No one is expecting a 100% hit rate with photos that are not post processed. If they want to discredit you on review platforms, they can still do that with or without the photos. your portfolio should be enough to convince future clients hiring you.
@H3R34TH4C0MM3NTS: Unless its in the contract I'm hired to cover a wedding to the best of my ability and make sure I cover all key moments, any specific requests and all photo opps as they present. Nowhere does it say in any contract I've seen that every digital file must be given to the clients. The ones where flash didn't fire, focus was off, someone bumped you, Try shooting low shutter speed in low light and see how many keepers you get. You'd be crazy to give all the misses to the client.
I was in the industry as full timer for many years working with the top ad agencies, magazines and designers before leading a fulltime tertiary Diploma of Photoimaging program so I've seen it all and have seen many instances of the wrong shot seen out of context causing irrevocable reputational damage. And BTW no idea how you got the idea it has anything to do with monetising.
@mauricem: irrevocable reputational damage? BS
If your client is happy with your job then providing extra photos that aren't perfect won't change that.
I find it hilarious how wedding photographers make up all these scenarios that literally never happen to justify it. Nobody is telling you to offer your non perfect photos as perfect.
Also its ridiculous to play "contract" when tomorrow will come and its just another day for you but the client's wedding day is once in a lifetime and you want be difficult just for fun.
@samfisher5986: Sam, you claim there is literally never a scenario this happens. This is just not true. Here are a few examples ;
I often deliberately underexpose a photo by 2-3 stops to protect highlights behind a high contrast front subject. In this case the raw file can look near completely dark. With an iso invariant sensor, i pull the shadows & curves quite drastically in post and output a jpeg that looks great, but a raw file that to a layman would look near black.
Taking a couple outside, night shots with using ambient light. 1/8th of a sec, telling the couple to stay still like a block of ice - there will still be blurry shots here amidst the sharp ones. Why give them the blurry raws of this?
I often shoot panoramas during a ceremony to get a look that looks roughly like a 24mm panoramic at extremely wide apertures. The unstitched photos here look ridiculous. Why hand them over?
Portraits of the bride, I'll often rip off 30-40 here and give her 5-8. In the 5-8 she looks great, and happy. In the others, she's nervous, not looking right, half eyes blinking etc - why give her the shots that make her feel bad?
Honestly mate you just don't understand what really goes into professional high end wedding photography but think you do. There is so much that goes into it that you would not have considered for a moment.
I hope this helps you to appreciate that not all wedding photographers are dodgy car salesman with a camera - and maybe a lot more than you think are actually very good at what is quite a skilled job.
Well kind of.
That’s a big conversation right there tbh but I’d be surprised if you found anyone charging this much , and be willing to fork over sooc raws (and no edits)
Link to their portfolios? Shop around if it’s not in budget.
Quickly off the top of my head:
Gear and gear up keep
Second and maybe third shooters usually
Insurances
Super/tax
Travel time
Labour time (usually talking sorting and filtering through thousands+ of photos)
Years (usually) of learning the craft/developing a style
Marketing
Consult fees
Software (Adobe, Dropbox or whatever cloud solution) etc