the public perception

Toothie

Toothie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,360
Name
Ruth
Edit My Images
Yes
Was at a wedding the other day and was talking about wedding togs with the other halfs sister. who asked why it was so expensive now everything was digital.

I explained that you had to do the prep work at the location and process the images and the cost of printing and petrol etc etc and she could see my point.

i find it interesting though that the general public consider protogs to be so over priced now things are digital.

Thoughts?
 
Trouble is printing hasn't got that much more cheaper, and no less skill is involved in getting that special shot whether on film or sensor, plus people aren't happy with 24 prints anymore, they all want so much more these days.:thinking:
 
I don't hear the "because it's digital" spin very often. Generally people think £1k for turning up and taking a few snaps is over priced and if that's all it was then I'd agree. Aside from the number of hours put in to a wedding there's also the value of the photographer's skills in coping with everything that might get thrown at them on the day. Last week's wedding went from 1 hour for groups/couple/etc. to 20 mins because of a suprise horse & carriage ride for the b&g. I still had to get all the shots done but in 1/3 the time :lol:
 
time in the dark room has been replaced by time behind a pc! At the end of the day you are not just paying for someone to turn up. there is plenty of skill involved.
 
I think in general people think wedding photographers overcharge.

When I was getting married I thought so too.

Now I'm not getting married the prices seem more reasonable.

Now I have children so I find that the photographers who specialise in children's portraits suddenly seem very expensive.
 
I think it is mostly that people dont understand what all goes on behind the scenes, I've also seen a lot of people who think you just buy an expensive camera then you take professional level shots.

So to people with this mindset think they are paying you 1k to turn up take a few snaps then drop the card into boots to get a few prints done. Usually when you actually explain the entire process behind the shots and the shear amount of time it takes to from start to end to photograph a wedding they will agree that it's not actually overpriced. Of course there is always the few who think they are gods gift to photography with their p&s and dont see any flaws in their images.
 
talking to a relation of the bride whose wedding we were shooting.
"must be money for old rope , your job.
turn up and take a few pictures, stick em in an album and charge em a grand or summat".
"yeah most weddings, were only on site for about 15 to 20 man hours.
only take 500 to 1000 shots , and only spend three or fours days editing and printing the shots.
weve only paid ten thousand pounds plus out in equipment , insurance and such.
oh and my mrs has only got 20 years experience in shooting weddings and portraits.
i reckon we ought to charge more."
he went very quiete at that point .
plonkers.

some prospective clients do probably think we charge a lot of money.
until we show em the results from previous weddings and explain exactly what does happen on the day.
the process involved in getting to the end product, and the work involved.
most then realise they are actualy getting great value for their money.
and a lot of them pay as much for a few spins in a wedding car, as they do us , for a record of the day, that will last a lifetime.
 
I stay well clear of weddings but if people don't think I'm expensive then I'm obviously undercharging them.

Perhaps I should get my cards changed to read L'Oreal Photographic. :D
 
I think that many people perceive jobs that involve using computer related technologies as automagically easy.
They just don't see the work behind it, they never try it, saying something silly like "I don't have the brains to do it.", yet they download software, music, movies or photos without even thinking about the work that has to be done to create them.
If you tell them it's not right, they just go like "Oh please, they just distribute the same content all over again". Make want to shout "***** you!" back at them, but that doesn't work. Explaining doesn't often work either, they'll just have you for a wise guy who's trying to justify the 'horrible' expenses.

What's funny is that such people often spend loads of money on total stupidities and useless stuff.
 
At which point hand them the camera and say "Away you go..." :lol:
 
Before i got back into photography, I asked my cusin to do my wedding
big mistake, would gladly have paid one of you guys a grand or 2 ,
never did get those pics:(
 
fabs said:
People take snaps with their digital cameras, take the memory card down to boots and print their pics. They probably think pro togs do the same. :shrug:
Click to expand...

am really starting to think they do, but then there are proabely some wedding togs out there doing that judging by some of the website the girls at work have been looking at - shocking stuff out there.
 
I think that part of the perception is that people are not only taking more photos now we have digital, but also sharing more.

If I posted my top ten photos, taken over the last 4 years, then an untrained eye would probably think they were a high standard, and I might be able to get a booking for a wedding. However, what they don't see are the thousands of awful, OOF, badly timed, cut half of heads/faces/bodies/things in half. Nor do they realise that my camera has 3.2mp, no manual settings and was given to me by my father in law who found it whilst on holiday in the states.

They also don't appreciate exactly what you can do after the photo was taken with software, and the skill and length of time this takes.

As mentioned, the general public ( and as a newbie, I have to include myself in this, do not realise just how expensive things are. I mean a lens is 2 bits of curved glass in a tube, they think it should cost £20. not £2k.

Also they do not get the concept that someone should earn a good wage for"just" taking pictures.

They do still assume that to develop a film you can only do it one way, what they don;t realise is processing 35mm there are many variables.

Having looked at some websites of pros, and seen the tosh they think is a good shot, I can understand why people compare their own photos to the pros and thin they can do as well.

as they say, "If you make something idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot" - people are stupid, and people do want something for nothing.....
 
My partner didn't understand either, until she saw the difference between almost identical shots taken with her p&s and my 40D. She now tells me she can't find her camera, can she borrow mine? :lol:
 
take the memory card down to boots and print their pics
Click to expand...
most use Asda or Tesco
Click to expand...

Do they, i wouldnt

I wouldnt have gone into detail explaining. I'm a printer by trade and had the same trouble when inkjets and now digital copiers came out. People thought and still think its fantastic quality.

Dave
 
I think we will always find people who want something for nothing. One remark I had was "Don't forget to take a shot of my cake (like I would anyway haha) cause I paid £600 for it" then she turns her nose up when told the price of her photography!! lets face it at the end of the day she wont have a cake!! but the proof as they say is usually in the pudding and generally it only takes a little explanation and producing your portfolio to make people realise its actually quite a lot of responsibility and work.
I find its more difficult when someone you know asks you to cover their wedding, some seem to forget its your livelihood.
 
I got married first time in 1989 and paid £400 for 40 prints in an album done by a pro (wonder if he's still around??) which was a months wages back then for a young man. Now next year i'm getting married again (fool they cry!!) and will be paying around £800 for 40 prints done in a reportage style. I think based on £6.85 minimum wage and a 40 hour week a rough monthly earning would be over £1000. So the cost has actually come down.

Just rough figures btw.

Wolfenden....that was his name...from Newark if i remember right.
 
Let me side on the public, at least for a second here.

Affordable digital cameras and easy printing have definitely brought photography down to the general public. I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm enough of a photographer to know that the today, the weekend warrior (or even the complete layman) is starting to present a threat to more serious photographers. Taking pictures has never been easier. Developing pictures has never been easier. This trend will continue. Pocketable cameras will become better and better. Printing (as if it wasn't easy enough) will become easier and easier.

In 20 years, cheap cameras will have image quality rivaling SLRs. Hell, cellphone cameras will have this kind of image quality. At that point, you have to really ask yourself what's better: arming 20 friends with cameras and choosing the best of a whole lot of pictures, or paying a single photographer?

Thus, when it comes to wedding photography, I have one criteria: the pro charging big bucks had better produce. I have seen some truly spectacular wedding photography. I know the effort involved and I respect them for it. But I have also seen some not-so-great photography.

Make no mistake -- there is still a big gap between a top photographer and a complete layman. But because of technology (and our cultural convergence towards using technology), the middle ground has moved. In a way, this is nice. Because we had easy access to this tech, many of us were able to start in the middle ground, and we have slowly edged our way towards the upper ground.

But now, there is no room for mediocre or even average pro photographers. If you're going to be doing this for a living, you've got to show people that you offer something they can't do themselves. Today, this is a lot harder.
 
Theo Moore said:
But now, there is no room for mediocre or even average pro photographers. .
Click to expand...


:agree:

My sister got a family member to do her photos and well to be honest they were at best...."ok". I'm paying for a pro and expect much much better and know i'll get it. "ya pays ya money and takes ya choice"
 
anyone that pays over 1k for wedding photos is a fool. you hardly look at them, you don't actually put any up on the wall. My friend and I charge £850 for a full day and we give the images to the couple to print themselves (although we can print if they want). in terms of time spent its not that bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top