How to start out on Weddings without treading too many toes

[elsahoffmann]

john its clear from your posts here that you lack the experience and knowledge at this point. I am not saying this to discourage you from doing wedding photography - but rather to make you realise than you perhaps have a way to walk before you are ready to go into this
your reason for wanting to hand the raw to the client makes no sense at all. it shows me you really need to grow a bit more.
Good luck.

[SJG]

and what software are your poor clients (pun intended) going to use to view their RAW photo's ??
if you tell them to download any of the freeware software for photo editing that has RAW compatibiity, they will become 'graphic artists' as soon as the "download complete" window closes.
then proceed to edit the crap out of your photos, then print said crap photos, and walk around telling everyone YOU did it..
your little venture will be over before it starts.

you are not quite clear in your motivation behind your proposal?
you mention 1 or 2 weddings a month?? so it cant be for you to make a 'quick buck'.??

so if you doing it with true benevolent attitude, to help some lower income couple, and its only 1 or 2 a month,then surely you can find the time to do some basic editing - u will have 2 weeks between weddings, and provide the couple with some nice jpg's on a disc that they can feel proud of and have printed when they can afford it.

dont do a half baked job - shot, copy to disc, run - even the lower income in society deserve some nice photos of their wedding day.

and not withstanding their 'price bracket' - i think most people of whatever income DO CARE if they get crappy prints of thier wedding day.!!

[BDillon]

I have to agree with the don't give RAW pic option here.

Two weeks ago friends of mine asked me to "do" their wedding for them. No expectations etc please just take some "snaps" Oh boy. I had a co-conspirator the grooms sister in law. Both of us took pics, hers jpeg , mine RAW. She asked me for copy of the unedited images so she could do some enlargements for the couple. I wrote a DVD with the jpegs and RAWS on for her.Explaining carefully that theses were raw and you need "special" software for them. Only to get a complaint 2 days latter the dvd was not correct as she could not view the images, only the ones she took. I.E. all the jpegs only. So this is a person with a nikon D50 and has no idea what a RAW is . Imagine a person that does not even own a camera.

I took the time to do an album for my friends and the response was AMAZING, although I think the effort was fair, neither fabulous no terrible, they loved it and two other people have asked me to do their big days based in this. So no intention of doing this sort of thing, I may be starting on slippery slide. (OK getting long now) Moral of the long story. People dont like raws on a cd they like an album they can show Ma and Pa. Thats what gets repeat business.

My 2 cents. Use as you needed .

[Philip Meyer (El Capitan)]

In general, men want to bragg about how little they paid for the CD with images on , which they can "cheaply" print themselves at home, while women want PHOTO'S to bragg with.

[John360sa]

In general, men want to bragg about how little they paid for the CD with images on , which they can "cheaply" print themselves at home, while women want PHOTO'S to bragg with.

I would like to thank all of you for your comments, but I think El Capitan takes the cake here. I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The bride wants and album, end of story, case closed.

Doing weddings "cheep" is probably very much a recipe for disaster, leaves the door open for complaints, etc.

The traditional business model for weddings was to make money on the prints. The new model is to charge for your time, hand over the disk with high res edited images and move on.

Both models have their merits, and both are successful.

As to crappy prints - most average Joes in that price bracket either won't see the difference, or don't care anyway.

@Mark. Thanks. That is pretty much exactly how I felt about the matter. Many wedding togs are actually making their money from the prints (and reprints) by holding on desperately to the copyright. I just thought doing things differently (giving out the copyright (ie. RAWs) ) , and charging only for the shoot time would make for an interesting option, very different from the industry norm.

john its clear from your posts here that you lack the experience and knowledge at this point...

Thanks for the honest comments. Actually I do know a fair bit about how the industry works, but admittedly I don't like the way it works. I think its very much just been adapted from the days of film, and everyone offers the same (similar) packages simply because "that's the way its always been done". My idea is simply to break away from the norm, and offer something different.

your reason for wanting to hand the raw to the client makes no sense at all

Sorry if my previous posts were confusing, I thought it was obvious, but from the posts by you and others, clearly I did not express myself well as to why I would give the RAW files away. What I meant was I don't care about the copyright of my images taken at weddings, and I'm quite happy to give the RAW (as well as jpg) files to the client so they do not have come back to me for prints. (this of course goes against the industry norm of giving the client only limited thumbnails on a CD, forcing the client to come back to the tog to get prints, thus further income for the tog).

Perhaps a further misunderstanding that we have here is the financial aspect. I have an income, and will not be doing weddings to make money. Life is not all about money. This is more of a fun thing, as well as learning along the way, meeting people, etc.

Bottom line, I actually don't want the client to come back to me for processing and printing. I want them to go elsewhere. Overseas there are businesses that specialize in post processing and printing only, so that the togs can specialize in... you guessed it... the photography!

There is not much space for such a specialized outfit here in SA because, dare I say it, South African photographers are too greedy. (...runs for the hills......) :P

If you can charge R2000 - 3000 per wedding profitably - good luck to you. I can't even get close - which is why I don't do weddings.

Well, yes, that will cover my costs, and I will still make a little on top (remember, no print cost, no album, no processing, no collecting prints, no delivering prints. Only costs are travel, equipment wear, etc.).

Why would you give up a substantial part of your income by NOT printing the photos? Remember that this kind of customer you are trying to get, doesn't go to the better labs (they're expensive remember) and no matter what you do or tell them - if the photo's don't match the CD, it's YOUR fault!
If you just give the CD and that's it, you'll not only lose ALL control but also all responsibility, which is BAD.

Ans: I'm not doing it for the money. I see the processing and prints, and album, as just too much hassle. Why should I do all that if I don't want to? Someone elses out there can do it for them...

I don't see any need for "control" over my clients, and would be quite happy to hand over the copyright. I mean really, its not loss to me.

And then if they demand discount, remember that there is such a low margin of profit that you'll easily end up paying in, in the end.This type of customer is not very loyal either and will easily leave you for guys charging even less!

Discount? I don't think I will be taking the job then. Haha!

Good point about loyalty there! Hmm...

If you want (I mean REALLY want) to do weddings, get focused on that - doing it for "fun" is for Aunt Betty in the funny clothes with her 1993 point and shoot film camera with the disposable flash cubes.

Just a question: Do you know who the other pro wedding photographers in you area are? And what they charge? And what their packages consist of?

Actually no, I do not want to do weddings. But I am considering doing a few (2 per month) just for fun, and to help out those who can not afford a real pro tog.

And yes, I have an idea of the market standard packages and rates. But I'm bot trying to "break in" to an existing market. I'm looking at a gap in the market that is not being (at least not well) catered for. There may be fun to be had there, without ruffling the feathers of the real pro togs. So, I started a thread here, and see where it goes from there.

[markthomas]

Bottom line, I actually don't want the client to come back to me for processing and printing. I want them to go elsewhere. Overseas there are businesses that specialize in post processing and printing only, so that the togs can specialize in... you guessed it... the photography!

There is not much space for such a specialized outfit here in SA because, dare I say it, South African photographers are too greedy. (...runs for the hills......) :P

There are businesses that do that. They are top rate retouchers and your client that paid 3K for his wedding won't be prepared to pay 30K for retouching.

It's not the greedy togs, it's the clients. Only the really top clients realise that a pro retoucher is another link in the chain that makes for great results. The rest try to get everything done as cheaply as possible.

And yes, I have an idea of the market standard packages and rates. But I'm bot trying to "break in" to an existing market. I'm looking at a gap in the market that is not being (at least not well) catered for. There may be fun to be had there, without ruffling the feathers of the real pro togs. So, I started a thread here, and see where it goes from there.

You are in Pretoria, do some market research and you will see you are breaking into an existing market. What you propose is nothing new, hundreds of togs in Pretoria alone do it that way.

Lastly: any new wedding photographer will be stepping on toes because he takes away work from existing photographers. Doesn't matter how you look at it, one more tog to share the pie means less for the rest.

[SoftDux-Rudi]

John, I think your model can work very well. When we got married, we were on a tight budget (lost my job, had to move from CT 2 JHB, started a business, etc), and we ended up paying about R3500 for 200 photos on a CD, high res. We were happy then, and at that stage it was more important to get a good photographer, than a fancy nice (approx R800) album to hold the pics in.

We got the JPG (don't bother with RAW, it could easily cause exatra overhead to support the client, explaining to him why his R3000 DVD doesn't work) images, unedited and untouched with was great cause we could do the retourch ourselves.

But, I have to add, we told (asked?) the photog that we had a tigh budget, and don't want prints or retouched photos (I personally hate it when some 'pro' add those ugly borders & effects to photos)

So, yes, this can work, and there's always a market for everything, you just need to look for it

[elsahoffmann]

Sorry if my previous posts were confusing, I thought it was obvious, but from the posts by you and others, clearly I did not express myself well as to why I would give the RAW files away. What I meant was I don't care about the copyright of my images taken at weddings, and I'm quite happy to give the RAW (as well as jpg) files to the client so they do not have come back to me for prints. (this of course goes against the industry norm of giving the client only limited thumbnails on a CD, forcing the client to come back to the tog to get prints, thus further income for the tog).

Perhaps our comments are confusing - we also assume perhaps that you understand the RAW thing.

1.
You shoot in RAW to give you the most control over your image - processing wise. This has nothing to do with the client getting the highest res to go off and print himself

2.
You NEVER give RAW files to a client. 99.9% chance he cant even view them, the lab cant print them, and they are totally unprocessed.

3.
You give the client high res Jpeg or Jpeg and Tiff if requested. PROCESSED. Even if you only check your colour corrections, sharpness etc.

4.
you dont give a client all your images - bloopers and all - in an unprocessed state. You put your name of that job - then do it properly and know what you put out there for all to see.

5.
Giving your client the RAW doesnt mean you give him the copyright.(You can give him copyright when handing him Jpegs.)

These are a couple of reasons I am saying you lack the knowledge/experience needed to jump into this one.

I say it again - this is not meant to discourage you - but to show you that you need to brush up on a couple of things before acting on your plan.

By all means break away form the norm - but do it properly. Your lack of experience may not be in the industry - but rather in photography (as per pointers above)

Lastly. Life may not be about money to you, but there are photographers we actually need to eat every month. You have an income - photography IS THEIR INCOME. Loose your monthly job/income and you will immediately take a different view on your statement. Sure there is a place for the kind of thing you want to do - but do it responsibly. Dont cut off your own water and lights.

[Philip Meyer (El Capitan)]

But I am considering doing a few (2 per month) just for fun, and to help out those who can not afford a real pro tog.

You want to have REAL fun? Have you tried accounting? That's really got a future as a fun thing!

[John360sa]

...we also assume perhaps that you understand the RAW thing.

Well of course I understand the "RAW thing". Since I realized the power for RAW, I always shoot in RAW.

If I am alsed to process photos taken by another tog, I always ask if the RAW is available. (do you even agree that RAW is better than Jpg? Then why are you fighting on this issue? RAW > Jpg therefore I will give my clients the RAW files)

1. You shoot in RAW to give you the c. This has nothing to do with the client getting the highest res to go off and print himself

Have you read your own post? That is exactly why I would like to give the client the RAW files, so that when the get the touching done the person who does the touching will "have the most control over the image".

Put yourself in the shoes of the person who will (6 months after the wedding perhaps) get the job to do the retouching. Would you prefer to be handed Jpg or RAW files? Of course you will opt for the RAW if its available.

That is my reason for giving the client the RAWs as well.

Of course, for ease of use by the client in the interim, I will also supply a CD with Jpgs (perhaps downsized for faster viewing, emailing, etc)

Please read this, and let this be that last comment on the RAW issue, I'm sick of reading the same responses over and over, when people just do not understand that:

I will be giving BOTH the RAW and the JPG files!

2. You NEVER give RAW files to a client. 99.9% chance he cant even view them, the lab cant print them, and they are totally unprocessed.

Roll eyes.

No, YOU may never give the RAWs to the client, but I WILL do so that they will be in the best possible position to have the images well process when they have the funds. RAW > Jpg . Case closed.
(that does not mean that I will not also give them Jpgs so that they will be able to view the images easily)

3. You give the client high res Jpeg or Jpeg and Tiff if requested. PROCESSED. Even if you only check your colour corrections, sharpness etc.

I will do a basic batch process on the Jpgs, yes, but the RAWs will still be provided as well.

4. you dont give a client all your images - bloopers and all - in an unprocessed state. You put your name of that job - then do it properly and know what you put out there for all to see.

Well ,thats a no brainer, but thanks for mentioning it. Im sure there are many togs out there that did not think of that. (sarc)

5. Giving your client the RAW doesnt mean you give him the copyright.(You can give him copyright when handing him Jpegs.)

Actually, I originally only mentioned that I will be giving the RAW. Someone else replaced that with the word copyright, and I played along with that.

Of course, if you give the client full res Jpg or RAW you are not nessisarily giving them the copyright in the process. But by doing so you make it too easy for them to use / print / etc the images without your consent.

My point is (perhps you are too stuck in your rigid "packages sceme" to see beyond it)... is that I would like to only shoot, and to give the client everything at that point, so that they can go on thier merry way, and get touching, prints, etc done elsewhere by themselves a few months later. I do not want to hold on to the copyrights, nor hold back on higher res images, not force them to print though me. In fact, I don't want to see them again!

It's not nessisary to talk down to someone who wants to do things differently to you. I do something for a living that you can not do; and you do something that I can not do; and thats all fine. Shake hands and go our seperate ways. Just because I do not see things your way (the traditional way), does not mean I am wrong, or inexperienced, it just means I have more of an abilty to think out the box than you do.

Lastly. Life may not be about money to you, but there are photographers we actually need to eat every month. You have an income - photography IS THEIR INCOME. Loose your monthly job/income and you will immediately take a different view on your statement. Sure there is a place for the kind of thing you want to do - but do it responsibly. Dont cut off your own water and lights.

While that may be very true, do you not agree that its high time that togs need to reconsider the "traditional" way of looking at photography, and start to adapt.

Adapt or die, its a fact of life. With the wave of happy snappers growing at alarming rates, the writing is on the wall for the photography business. It has been for some time. IMO the very good pros and those in a good niche have nothing to worry about, but the mid range togs need to serriously look at their future plans. Adapt or die. People are not going to carry on paying top dollar for someing that can be done .... elsewhere.

[John360sa]

John, I think your model can work very well. When we got married, we were on a tight budget (lost my job, had to move from CT 2 JHB, started a business, etc), and we ended up paying about R3500 for 200 photos on a CD, high res. We were happy then, and at that stage it was more important to get a good photographer, than a fancy nice (approx R800) album to hold the pics in.

We got the JPG (don't bother with RAW, it could easily cause exatra overhead to support the client, explaining to him why his R3000 DVD doesn't work) images, unedited and untouched with was great cause we could do the retouch ourselves.

But, I have to add, we told (asked?) the photog that we had a tigh budget, and don't want prints or retouched photos (I personally hate it when some 'pro' add those ugly borders & effects to photos)

So, yes, this can work, and there's always a market for everything, you just need to look for it

Hey Rudi. Good to see you active on this forum too.

You are exactly the kind of client I would like to serve. From chatting to the market (people planning to get married in the next year or so) they all say how horrified they are at the high cost of the photography at weddings.

Many of them have already expressed interest in my plan of "shoot only" to save on initial costs, and then still have the power (thanks to RAW being made available) to eventually get property processed images as finances allow.


As the global economic crisis (yes, I said it) hits everyone's pockets hard, people are cutting back like never before. Now its time to adapt with the market, and offer a package that suits the tighter budget.

The client comes first. Ask them what they want and expect, then build a business model around that. Doing it to other way around (while it may make more sense to some) , can be very limiting.

Variety is what makes the world interesting. We can all try different things, and each get different results from what we do. If it works keep at it, if it does not work the adapt you plan.

Rudi, I know you will be with me on that one, also coming from the web prospecting field. Sometimes things you though would work did not, and other times even what may have seemed like a silly idea at first bloomed into something unexpectedly great. The secret to success is to be different, go where others dare not, and know when to push it futher, and when to give up.

[John360sa]

You want to have REAL fun? Have you tried accounting? That's really got a future as a fun thing!

Accounting no, but one of my first "holiday jobs" was data capture. Boring as 'ell !

I actually really enjoy my main business, and the challenges it brings. But I'm always looking to try out other things, and see how it turns out, you just never know what can come of it.

Most of us humans spend a 3rd of our life at work, so it makes sense to choose a career that is fun. Then your after hours, "hobby job" is you will, should also be fun.

[sammix]

For somebody who doesn't want to tread on too many toes, you got a crappy attitude dude! Sounds like you already know all the answers, so why bother asking around?

[Deezil]

Wouldn't you become pissed off as well after being attacked over the same issues on numerous occasions?

John asked a legitimate question, few people aired their opinions, John explained his business model (which actually do make sense) and yet he is still being attacked left right and centre!

John, I think you have your answers ... good luck with your venture, hope it works out well ... now please (everybody) let the matter rest before adding more fuel to the fire!

[elsahoffmann]

I am sorry you feel my comment was an attack on you. I have said enough times I am not trying to discourage you - but HELP you.

I certainly DONT need your sarcasm or your attitude or to waste my time trying to explain something to you that you feel you have grasped.

Go ahead and make an arse of yourself. uhm actually you already did.

[Lappies]

when i grow up... i wanna be famous... i wanna be a star... i wanna be Elsa...!! hehe

[John360sa]

Some feel that they want to blow up a small technicality and break completely away from the topic at hand, and the questions I asked at the start which relates to pricing.

• I did not ask for advice about how to print.
• I did not ask for a lecture on creating a business model (done stax of those successfully)
• I did not ask if RAW is better than Jpg. (In know it is)
• I did not ask if others feel I should give away the copyright and let the client do their own thing. (I know most of you would be against that, which is why I didn't ask, but I will be doing so.)
• I did not ask for advice on camera equipment or technique (before someone goes off down that road, or another off topic...)

It was recommended that I batch convert all images to Jpg for ease of viewing in the interim (before properly touched), which is a valid point, and I have accepted that advice already. I will give the client a CD with RAWs and Jpg (only basic batch processing, not touching).

There is no need to continue discussing RAWs at this point. Its done, please only make comments on the topic at hand.

For somebody who doesn't want to tread on too many toes, you got a crappy attitude dude! Sounds like you already know all the answers, so why bother asking around?

Um, yes, I do have my own "answers" to all the off topic points that have now become the focus of attention.

But let me remind you that I did not raise these issues, others did. I was not asking about all these other things (see above), I asked only about price as a courtesy to those who do this for a living, but some have taken the opportunity to...

I'm not sure who is moderating on this forum, but it has been allowed to go way off topic now, and its starting to affect the quality of the responses. As I said in my first post, "Please don't let this start a fight".

Most forums do not allow mud slinging posts like this at all, that do not add to the topic at all. Really dude, nobody cares whos "side" you are on. Stick to the topic if you have something constructive to say, please do so.

[John360sa]

Wouldn't you become pissed off as well after being attacked over the same issues on numerous occasions?

John asked a legitimate question, few people aired their opinions, John explained his business model (which actually do make sense) and yet he is still being attacked left right and centre!

John, I think you have your answers ... good luck with your venture, hope it works out well ... now please (everybody) let the matter rest before adding more fuel to the fire!

@Deezil. Thank you for using so few words to explain the situation.

Now if anyone has comments on the original questions relating to price, or if they would like to add something about "if this will work" (thanks Rudi), then please do so.

All others, really, your energy will be spent more productively elsewhere. Sorry if you felt that commenting here was a waste of your time, but off topic commenting usually has that affect, it helps nobody.

[Harley]

Hi Guys

Please don't let this start a fight, I'm looking for genuine feedback only here.

I'll try my best.

I already have my own business, which means my time is my own. I have decided to go into wedding photography, but I don't really see myself ever taking on the full time pros. This is more of target market of the budget wedding. Not the cheapskates, but not for the rich either. Lets just say that I want to cater for the middle to lower income brackets, and this will be more for fun than my main income (maybe 1 or 2 weddings per month).

OK... next.

Anyway, right now I do appreciate that as I'm still very new to this, I can not justifiably charge the going rates for my work, as its not of the same standard.
At the same time if I charge too little, the local photographers will not like me too much, as it may affect the "going rate" for the area.
Hmm...

"Traditionally" the answer would be charge what you're worth, but you and only you can determine at the end of the day what your work and quality is worth.

Of course we can not please all the people all of the time, but got to start somewhere hey?

True, everyone has to start somewhere, BUT you need the skills, aptitude, background knowledge and proper equipment before you start.

I loaded a few pics in my gallery that show, er... well, its was my first wedding be nice!

Well John if you can honestly tell me that those images came straight from the RAW file and absolutely no editing i.e. Levels, Curves, Contrast Enhancement, Saturation, Skin Work, Dust Removal, Cropping, Layer Work and Sharpening, to name a few, was done then I don't see any problem handing the unprocessed RAW files over to the client at all.

Any help would be great...

Part 2 to follow.....

[Jaco Fourie]

The market is flooded by people who want to cover that market segment. I know a photographer that will shoot the wedding and at the reception burn a DVD and hand it over to the couple. He charges R900 for the 4 hours he spends at the wedding . So what you want to do is not new and you have a lot of competition in that low end segment. Obviously the quality is only R900 as well. In my mind if somebody wants to do that they can ask a family member to do the shoot work as the end result is the same.