Low cost photography - raised
- Thread starter MARK AMIES
- Start date
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Youve got a point to an extent but its not that black and white - there are a lot of part timers and weekend warriors who charge rates not that much different to pro's and offer the same level of service.
and there are also a lot of WWs who need the second income from their tog business to make ends meet and are thus just as motivated as the full timers and its not a case of the togging being just a hobby supported by the day job.
Also there will always be brides who can't afford more than a few hundred quid so the part timers / beginers soaking up this market arent taking business away from a four figure pro as the choice for those brides is cheap photos or no photos (or photos only shot by uncle bob)
Last edited:
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It's OK to test the water and gain experience, but please don't fall into the trap of believing that there's a viable business in that price.When does someone go from being an amateur where you, as the customer, are sacrificing quality for cost, to someone entering the market who can provide you with quality at a lower cost in order to build a reputation and a working portfolio?
In answer to the op, no I don't think the lower cost of digital is killing the industry - it's astonishing how many people cannot even get a half decent shot with a very capable camera. The Uncle Bobs will be at every wedding but not in a paid capacity and if a client is prepared to pay £200 for mediocre shots then they were never really in the running for a pro anyway. Maybe these people, people like me, are filling a gap.
I have booked a wedding recently, it will actually be the first I have charged for and am charging £350 for the full day coverage with a DVD. It will seem like peanuts to some but over-priced to others but the couple are happy with my style of photography and are comfortable enough with me. I also noticed another newbie locally advertising their services and charging less than I plan to, but I checked them out and we are very different so people who are interested in them probably wouldn't be interested in me - I can live with that, variety is the spice of life or so they say
If you want to do it properly, spend some money on advertising, a website, insurance and sample albums, not to mention the upkeep of the actual photography and IT hardware. Then at 10 to 30 weddings a year, there's no money there even before tax!
Some people will use excuses about how they have the gear anyway? or make a half baked attempt at a website, then complain when they can't afford gear repairs or the website isn't getting them any work.
jamesoliverstone
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,145
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh well, it seems that according to some people on this thread, because I shoot with a Sony a77 I guess I am not a pro anymore.
Oh dammit... If only I had known! I best hang up my coat and move on then...
As previously stated, a camera is just a tool... end of.
Oh dammit... If only I had known! I best hang up my coat and move on then...
As previously stated, a camera is just a tool... end of.
jamesoliverstone
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,145
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
Too damned right you aren't! Unless you've finally managed to flog those holiday snaps of yours!
Funnily enough I just granted an exclusive license to the 900 photos I have just done in Guatemala for the charity and I never got a bean for it.
Apparently I have to make do with my salary instead
See, still not making any bloody money out of these holiday snaps 
Still, at least I get credited (isnt that worth more than money around here)
jamesoliverstone
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,145
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed, but its a good thing I am not a freelancer anymore, after all, I dont have any "pro" gear anymore
redhed17
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,316
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree with you apart from low prices being unsustainable. Why not? :shrug:
Unless the 'UBs' and 'WWs' have to take on some of the costs of a Pro, Insurance, Tax, Back Up gear etc, then there will always be the cheap option. :shrug:
I've reluctantly done a few weddings, but these were for people who were unwilling, or because of the cost and location of the wedding couldn't want to pay top dollar. If these people are unwilling to spend on a Pro for (hopefully guaranteed) results on possibly the biggest day of their life then that is their choice. :shrug: If they are unable to pay then they make the most of what they can get. :shrug:
I've been watching a live webcast for the last few nights about Wedding Photography by Zach and Jody Gray on CreativeLive and have been extremely impressed by the quality and speed of the results they have been getting. I have no doubt they earn the money they charge. (though I'd like to see what they would do with the average American rather than the beautiful people
) Ironically people watching something like that may feel they now have the skills to do that and become a UB or WW. 
As for the OPs question, I think Digital tech has definitely affected Professional Photographers negatively, because of increased competition at lower prices. Whether the lower priced Photographer is of the same quality level of product and service is another thing, but pictures keep appearing in mags and adverts and people are getting pics of their weddings, so was what was there before priced for the quality or lack of competition? :shrug:
Digital has had so many positives for the vast majority of people that the relatively small numbers of Professionals may have suffered as a consequence. Unless the Pros offer a noticeably superior product/service than the enthusiast to the people who pay their fess to justify their cost, then they will struggle imho.
I gave up Photography because of the cost of film (and other related problems) and only got back into it because of Digital, and a large part of my present job is because of Digital.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thing is most part timers / weekend warriors do have those expenses - the reason they are working cheap (if they are, many here actually charge not much different to full timers) is more to do with lacking confidence to charge more.
The line between fulltimer and weekend warrior/part timer is both artificial and false, anyone who is togging for money is doing so proffesionally, how often they do so has no real bearing - for that matter there are probably full timers out thee shooting for a pittance and/or evading their tax or responsibilities.
and uncle bob is never going to take those costs on because by definition he's not getting paid (he's just a guest with a camera), and thus doesnt pay tax or need insurance, and dosnt need back up gear because no one is actually depending on him , if his camera breaks it breaks.
Richard King
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
I am firstly not sure why we always end up talking about weddings... however
The prices / businesses are unsustainable (in terms of a business model or anything else really). You realistically are not going to shoot 20 weddings for a couple of hundred quid each. On a practical level they absorb so much time
- acquiring the customer
- dealing with websites
- doing the shoot
- editing images
- doing the backups
- uploading stuff on line
- dealing with album enquires
- designing albums
- delivering products
- driving to the post office
la la la
This is why I see locally, each year a new crowd of bottom feeders arrive and go. They shoot about 5 weddings and get totally lost, behind and sink - it is unsustainable financially, and in practical terms too
I just spent all day making back ups, burning disks, making sideshows - non stop.. its Sunday, I work full time at this, and it still takes over my free time.
look at a camera that costs 4K and has a shutter expectancy of 200,000 clicks. Without shooting anything else, based on 2000 shots a wedding, it will last 100 weddings. Wil a Pro take it anywhere near 200,000 click - no unless he is mad. The camera costs £40 per wedding, in reality, if you shoot few weddings, you still need to invest in ALL the gear, so lets just say to be generous, it costs £100 per wedding in gear, that is based on not shooting too many weddings.
I recon you need to invest £8000+ in gear to have the right amount with you at a wedding and do the job properly and have a backup £8000 is £220 per month for 3 years at 8.8 Apr (don't mention depreciation)
It is all these reasons why shooting weddings for a few hundred quid is unsustainable, and possibly why people justify buying a pile of gear for their hobby to their spouses
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
very artificial figure there rich - why would you shoot 2000 shots per wedding for a start - the last one i did i shot about 400. So given that my camera is good for about 100,000 clicks that would be 250 weddings
secondly you dont need anywhere 8 grands worth of gear - 2 bodies, 2 flash guns and a couple of lenses (plus associated sundries) , and theres a lot of snobbery about having to have full frame or having to have fast lenses - the last wedding I shot I used a 20D and a 450D with a 18-55IS, a nifty, 90m f2.8 , and 70-300 IS, 2 canon 420exs - total cost about £1500 (and that includes buying the 20D new eight years ago)
(Even if you decided full frame was a must you could still pick up a couple of 5D clasic and short Ef lenses and have change out of 2 grand.)
so thats a cost of £6 per wedding for gear
All that notwithstanding I do agree that shooting a full day for £300 quid isnt a sustainable model - I'd usually value my time at about £50/hour , so eight hours at the venue and 4 hours PP would give a cost of £600 which is about the minimum i'd charge unless it was a very short job
secondly you dont need anywhere 8 grands worth of gear - 2 bodies, 2 flash guns and a couple of lenses (plus associated sundries) , and theres a lot of snobbery about having to have full frame or having to have fast lenses - the last wedding I shot I used a 20D and a 450D with a 18-55IS, a nifty, 90m f2.8 , and 70-300 IS, 2 canon 420exs - total cost about £1500 (and that includes buying the 20D new eight years ago)
(Even if you decided full frame was a must you could still pick up a couple of 5D clasic and short Ef lenses and have change out of 2 grand.)
so thats a cost of £6 per wedding for gear
All that notwithstanding I do agree that shooting a full day for £300 quid isnt a sustainable model - I'd usually value my time at about £50/hour , so eight hours at the venue and 4 hours PP would give a cost of £600 which is about the minimum i'd charge unless it was a very short job
Last edited:
cambsno
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,999
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thats if you run a proper business, if you offer £300 weddings you will not be doing most of this. IF I was to offer cheap weddings, I could shoot on the day, quick edit in LR and burn to a CD - you could easily spend a couple of hours PPing a couple of hundred images, not saying quality may be up to much though!!! From what I have seen most cheap wedding togs just give a CD.
Also, why do people bang on about WW and cheap togs not paying tax. There is every chance that someone charging £2k a wedding could be cooking the books too - like a certain football manager!!
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I think this usually boils down to wedding photographers for the same reason there are so many cheap wedding photographers! Because they're the photographers most people have had the most dealings with, a simple lack of imagination of theoutsider to the industry.
So back to the original question; Of course it does.
Micro stock has meant that many amateurs are throwing their work out there for very littlemoney because any return is better than nothing. For buyers this means that they can buy an OK photo for a few quid rather than paying proper rates for a perfect shot.
A profusion of keen amateurs have taken work from commercial photographers who are losing work from businesses getting lesser quality work done 'in house'.
Press photographers are losing work because many people are happy to be paid with a photo-credit for what are often not good snapshots.
So the general quality deteriorates because many people have no understanding of the value of good photography. I can't see how the trend will reverse, but thankfully there'll allways be some customers who understand the quality / value balance. So ther will always be an industry for those who can sell to these people.
So back to the original question; Of course it does.
Micro stock has meant that many amateurs are throwing their work out there for very littlemoney because any return is better than nothing. For buyers this means that they can buy an OK photo for a few quid rather than paying proper rates for a perfect shot.
A profusion of keen amateurs have taken work from commercial photographers who are losing work from businesses getting lesser quality work done 'in house'.
Press photographers are losing work because many people are happy to be paid with a photo-credit for what are often not good snapshots.
So the general quality deteriorates because many people have no understanding of the value of good photography. I can't see how the trend will reverse, but thankfully there'll allways be some customers who understand the quality / value balance. So ther will always be an industry for those who can sell to these people.
Richard King
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Ask. How many pros (or anyone else) are shooting with a camera with a click count over 200000, new shutter or not. Would you trust a serviced camera with a new shutter to shoot a wedding?
Apparently we need new better gear (pro or not), and we are pariahs for not using it, even when the old gear was "the gear to have" last year (that's another argument)
So guys what do you think... I routinely use a Kodak SLR14n for weddings, and a Fuji S5 (and a Nikon D3s)
However things change - I love the ISO performance of the D3s over the old Kodak (that's a no brainer) However, my brides (for what ever reason) choose the images from the Kodak time and time again.. that's another no brainer
Richard King
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
I did pluck the figures out of the air there a bit
However
Most wannabe wedding photographers are shooting stupid amounts of images, machine gun style, nothing like 400. Perhaps we could all chip in what we shoot and what we deliver.
I shoot about 1200, and deliver 1150
Secondly, I really disagree with you about the gear - to cheapskate this..
Lets say as a minimum 1200 for a body x 2 = £2400
and at least a couple of grands worth of lenses = £2000
2 half decent flash guns £600
a set of stands and some accessories £150
Some radio triggers £400
Tripods, monopods and reflectors £200
CF cards £200
Batteries £100
Decent camera strap £100
Decent carry bags £150
Thats still 5K +, and TBH that's light on the lenses, and probably light on one of the cameras
Most Pro's who do this a lot will have available to them an additional pile of lighting gear, and other spares and a wider range of lenses
- micro/macro
- fish eye
- fast super wide angle
- fast long prime
- 85mm 1.4 and/or or 50mm 1.4
- a range of 2.8 zooms
(thats on top of the good long zoom on camera one and the good short zoom on camera 2)
Maybee even
- colour passport etc.
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't need to. Hang around in Fixation or Jacobs lounge on a Friday afternoon, and you'll soon get your answer. It isn't the one that you seem to think it is btw!
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I generally shoot between 4-500 and deliver about a hundred
and on the gear front - I understand why a full timer would invest in top spec kit but it isnt absolutely essential particularly for a part timer- 8MP (like my 20d) will give you a perfectly acceptable print at any size a bride is likely to want and the 11 or whatever from a 5D classic definitely will
so 2 5D classics bought s/h 600 quid each £1200
Lenses something short and something long 2 of each about a grand to 1500 buying used
2 flash guns ( I actually have 3 as i like to have a spare) mine cost be 50, 75, and 80 respectively (again second user) £225
I've never used stands - Usually I'll get my assistant or second shooter to hold a flash if two are needed
Similiatrly dont need radio triggers save one slave unit which cost circa £20
Tripod cost £70 second hand, dont use a mono pod, reflector bcost about 50 quid
CF cards cost about 10-15 quid each and I usually use 4 so say £60
Batteries £4.99 each from 7 day shop and I usually carry 6 so say £30
Camera strap - the ones that come with the cameras are perfectly adequate (£100 for a strap
no offense but they saw you coming ) Decent bags (yes i agree here about £150)
So thats a tad over 3k (and that including 5Ds which I dont usually use)
and personally I don't think any of the rest of the list is necessary - I do carry my 90mm macro but only because its an excellent potrait lens , and I dont feel the need for a bunch of fast primes or a superwide angle, and I carry a nifty instead of a much more expensive f1.4
I'm not knocking your kit choices (except for the £100 strap
) as its all a matter of personal preference and also of how much cash you have to inject - but my point is that it isnt essential to spend that ammount of cash on kit in order to shoot a wedding.In my view the minimum thats needed is a set of kit that can get the shots , and a back up set in case anything dies - and so long as someone has that degree of foresight they are no less proffesional than someone who spends half the national debt on their kit
(unlike walter mitty photography with one entry level body, a kit lens, and no back up, no insurance and no clue ... i think most of us will agree that they are in no way proffesional)
Last edited: