Professional Photographers (Thrip)

[Goafer]

Why Wedding Photographer's Prices are "Wack"

 

 

The short version: Some woman posted a rant on Craigslist that wedding photographers are a rip off and they charge way too much. A wedding photographer made a well worded reply, basically saying that they are a small business owners and explaining all the costs involved in professional photography.

[MoogleViper]

Why Wedding Photographer's Prices are "Wack"

 

 

The short version: Some woman posted a rant on Craigslist that wedding photographers are a rip off and they charge way too much. A wedding photographer made a well worded reply, basically saying that they are a small business owners and explaining all the costs involved in professional photography.

 

A lot of that is bullshit though. You can't attribute the rent of your house to your earnings. You can apportion part of your rent, which in this case would be he part of the rent which is allotted to his shed (not very much at all, certainly not 600pm). You also can't attribute the cost of a car or insurance. Certainly not a brand new car as well. Neither can you attribute shoes. Everybody has to wear shoes. I'm not entirely sure how it works in the US but due to their healthcare system I imagine he would have health insurance anyway (surely a British photographer wouldn't need it) so he can only attribute any increase in insurance due to his job. Similarly with his home internet and phone (though h can include is phone charges/tariff). Also with the accountant (everybody has to pay taxes, if he can't work out how to pay them himself that's his own burden) and nor does he need a 27" iMac (not sure about prices in america but ?1000 is more than enough for a capable PC). If those were actual costs then they would be tax exempt and he wouldn't be paying $15000 tax.

[Goafer]

A lot of that is bullshit though. You can't attribute the rent of your house to your earnings. You can apportion part of your rent, which in this case would be he part of the rent which is allotted to his shed (not very much at all, certainly not 600pm). You also can't attribute the cost of a car or insurance. Certainly not a brand new car as well. Neither can you attribute shoes. Everybody has to wear shoes. I'm not entirely sure how it works in the US but due to their healthcare system I imagine he would have health insurance anyway (surely a British photographer wouldn't need it) so he can only attribute any increase in insurance due to his job. Similarly with his home internet and phone (though h can include is phone charges/tariff). Also with the accountant (everybody has to pay taxes, if he can't work out how to pay them himself that's his own burden) and nor does he need a 27" iMac (not sure about prices in america but ?1000 is more than enough for a capable PC). If those were actual costs then they would be tax exempt and he wouldn't be paying $15000 tax.

 

That's not the point. The point is that she does this full time and for that to be viable, she has to charge these prices. There's no point having a full time job if it doesn't pay all of her bills. She is the business, so her bills are the business' bills.

 

All of those things she listed are completely necessary* and without them, the business wouldn't be possible.

 

*Except maybe the shoes, but image is pretty important when your next clients could be there.

 

 

 

Edit: This is her reply to criticisms of her response to the bride

 

Of course I don’t pay my taxes off the top OR deduct the full price of my

house, car, computer, equipment, etc. from my taxes. I used these figures to make a POINT to one specific bride. That point was sadly overlooked by those who decided to focus more on my car lease payment or how much I spend on internet per year. I will say that there are more expenses that I didn’t list which would help even out the mistakes in the expenses that people are nitpicking about.

 

What I did want people to feel was RESPECT – not just for me, but for

photographers and small business owners in general and see that there is A LOT of time, investment, sacrifice and things behind the scenes that many people may not realize when they drop that $3000 check in the mailbox. Most of that money is going to expenses and being re-invested into our business, and most of us are in no way pocketing that money and living the luxurious lifestyle this bride implied.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Goafer

[MoogleViper]

That's not the point. The point is that she does this full time and for that to be viable, she has to charge these prices. There's no point having a full time job if it doesn't pay all of her bills. She is the business, so her bills are the business' bills.

 

All of those things she listed are completely necessary* and without them, the business wouldn't be possible.

 

*Except maybe the shoes, but image is pretty important when your next clients could be there.

 

But all of those things I mentioned she would need whether she was a photographer or not. Most jobs require shoes, internet, phone, car, house etc. She can't claim something as big as a house/car as an expense and then say she only makes $7000 a year. It's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: And if you do add back on the hose and car (which anybody with half a brain should), then she's making well over $20k for those 4 months that she's doing wedding photographer. Now I don't know about you but on a pro rata salary of over $60k, I'd consider that a lot of money, and can see why somebody would be pissed of with a $3k price tag. Now I'm not saying she isn't worth that (I know nothing of photographer/care very little for weddings/photographs), nor am I saying hat she shouldn't be charging that (joys/evils of capitalism). But to say that she's only making $7000 by using completely ridiculous book-keeping methods (I'm beginning to see why she needs to hire an accountant) is just idiotic, and certainly not worth of praise/sympathy.

Edited February 13, 2012 by MoogleViper

[The fish]

But all of those things I mentioned she would need whether she was a photographer or not. Most jobs require shoes, internet, phone, car, house etc. She can't claim something as big as a house/car as an expense and then say she only makes $7000 a year. It's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: And if you do add back on the hose and car (which anybody with half a brain should), then she's making well over $20k for those 4 months that she's doing wedding photographer. Now I don't know about you but on a pro rata salary of over $60k, I'd consider that a lot of money, and can see why somebody would be pissed of with a $3k price tag. Now I'm not saying she isn't worth that (I know nothing of photographer/care very little for weddings/photographs), nor am I saying hat she shouldn't be charging that (joys/evils of capitalism). But to say that she's only making $7000 by using completely ridiculous book-keeping methods (I'm beginning to see why she needs to hire an accountant) is just idiotic, and certainly not worth of praise/sympathy.

 

She's making at most $50,000, and that's on private contract work (ie very, very variable - she could easily make half that, and that's part of the reason people like that charge so much). The average US salary is $50,000. Now, compare that to the UK, where it's ?24,000, and imagine some one was telling you that by making ?24,000 if you have a good year you're living the life of Riley and should earn less..

Edited February 13, 2012 by The fish

[MoogleViper]

Well that's after tax, so it's certainly more than average.

 

Also ad I said I've never claimed she was earning too much or should charge less, I merely objected to her idiotic figures/reasoning.

[The fish]

Well that's after tax, so it's certainly more than average.

 

Also ad I said I've never claimed she was earning too much or should charge less, I merely objected to her idiotic figures/reasoning.

 

Pennsylvania has 3% income tax, so she's making about $51500 a year. Woopitiy-do?

[nightwolf]

Why Wedding Photographer's Prices are "Wack"

 

 

The short version: Some woman posted a rant on Craigslist that wedding photographers are a rip off and they charge way too much. A wedding photographer made a well worded reply, basically saying that they are a small business owners and explaining all the costs involved in professional photography.

 

Personally I am in complete agreement, there a lot of situations similar to this - usually when commissioned to do something.

 

The difference is here, photography is popular, there's always going to be weddings, but this doesn't guarantee money coming through the door, this photographer or any other may not get another job for a while and somehow has to pay bills some other way.

 

Besides, the point at the very bottom and wedding dresses for one day and photos lasting a lot longer = nailed. Completely true. If you want something that is going to last, you have to pay for it, if they don't want to pay the price, have cube take pictures on his phone for ?100. :awesome:

[Cube]

Actually, screw printing them out at Boots. I'll just email them. No resizing or enhancements. Then they'll wish they paid for a proper one.

[nightwolf]

Actually, screw printing them out at Boots. I'll just email them. No resizing or enhancements. Then they'll wish they paid for a proper one.

 

Such a good service.

[Wesley]

Look guys, stop arguing.

 

She's decided to have a full-time job being a wedding photographer.

 

And she says herself the wedding season is only 4 months.

 

So she's really... super... smart.

 

Right?

[MoogleViper]

Pennsylvania has 3% income tax, so she's making about $51500 a year. Woopitiy-do?

 

What? She said herself that she pays $15000 in tax. Or was that another bullshit figure?

[bob]

Whenever anything Wedding-y is involved you have to add the 'wedding tax' anyway. Three course meal? ?25 per head. Three course wedding meal? ?45 per head.

 

Want to hire this venue out for a birthday party? ?2000 for 6 hours. Want to hire this venue out for a wedding? ?4000 because fuck you.

 

People organising weddings lose all sense of money and reason and so people selling stuff for weddings can bump the price up a a bit.

 

Now i'm not saying whether or not the photographer is charging too much or too little, but if she wants to charge $3000 and people will happily pay it, then good luck to her.

[Wesley]

Yeah I actually don't see the problem in it either, to be honest.

 

Yeah it's expensive but so's your face, right?

 

Anyway, I'm moving into a career of being one of those Santa guys you see at shopping outlets and stuff.

 

I wanna be a pro and go full-time.

 

So it's that's about one month...

 

Charge little kid ?100?

 

I'll do the maths and make you realise it's actually not expensive...

[Jav_NE]

It's pretty stupid, because most people i know just get a friend to do it instead. Most people know at least one person with a pretty nifty camera that takes professional quality pictures these days. It may not be as arty, but you can still get the standard cake close-ups and what-not. Sometimes the best shots are the ones friends take anyway on their supposedly crap compacts.

 

I'd never do the massive church and hotel thing - waste of time and money. Simple, romantic and intimate all the way.

[MoogleViper]

I'd like to point out (once again) that I'm not saying that she's over-charging or that she should earn less etc., we live in a capitalist society. If they market will pay it then she's not charging to much. What I objected to was the ridiculous use of figures to try and claim that she lives off of $7000, which is clearly a lie.

[Charlie]

Where as I can completely see her point and agree with her. She's gone about making it in the wrong way. There's no need to mention money at all. Just everything involved.

 

I would personally think that that is excessive for photography but that just me. As someone else said, you're bound to know someone with a decent camera these days.

 

Then on the other hand, I would pay more for entertainment because that is what would be important to me. Entertainment can make or break a reception.

[bob]

I think that wedding photographers are a bit of a relic from when cameras used to be really expensive and difficult to operate.

 

People nowadays just want pictures to remind them of what their wedding was like, and then maybe a nice one of the bride and groom. Seeing as everyone at the wedding will have a digital camera to take pictures of most of the goings-on, all they need is someone who can work a camera to enough of a degree to take the official bride/groom photo.

 

I'm not saying that photography is easy and anyone can do it, mind you. I just think that if you are trying to keep costs down, it's not that hard to do it yourself and have a slightly crappier outcome which still ticks all the boxes.

[Wesley]

Photography is pretty easy and most people can do it though.

 

@Goafer just uses a random number generator to place his camera, for instance.

[Goafer]

It's pretty stupid, because most people i know just get a friend to do it instead. Most people know at least one person with a pretty nifty camera that takes professional quality pictures these days.

 

I would personally think that that is excessive for photography but that just me. As someone else said, you're bound to know someone with a decent camera these days.

 

You're looking at at least ?1000 for a camera that can take decent pictures in wedding conditions (low light in the church and even lower light in the reception). Then you need someone who actually knows how to use it. Then you need someone who knows how to get the best pictures of people in a candid environment.

 

At the end of the day, you do get what you pay for (with some exceptions of photographers charging more than they're worth). You want someone with the skills and experience to get the best possible images? You have to pay. If you don't want to pay it, then fine. Each to their own. Just bear in mind that there are no re-shoots and there is no "Oh just wait there a minute, I just need to figure out what I'm doing" when the bride is at the altar or some spontaneous event occurs.

 

What I do object to though is people assuming that photography, especially professional photography, is easy because anyone can buy a camera and pirate a copy of Photoshop. Anyone can buy a paint brush, but it doesn't mean they're any good with it.

 

I've spent the last 5 years learning photography, half of that time actually in the industry (so I've learnt quicker than if I'd been in a normal job), spent thousands on equipment and done loads of work for people for free just to get the practice and only now do I consider myself good enough to start wedding photography. Why should I and other photographers (who have done much more than I have) sell ourselves short?

[EEVILMURRAY]

You want someone with the skills and experience to get the best possible images?

And good shoes, don't forget that.

[Cube]

Personally, I would expect the photographer to be in a dress/tux and therefore would require good shows. You don't want them turning up in jeans/t-shirt/trainers.

 

Or nothing at all as they can't afford clothes.

[Goafer]

Personally, I would expect the photographer to be in a dress/tux and therefore would require good shows. You don't want them turning up in jeans/t-shirt/trainers.

 

I personally wouldn't care, since they're there to do a job, not look good. But I know I'm probably not in the majority and most people expect a photographer to look the part. I'll always wear a full suit and shoes to a wedding.

 

In a preemptive response to the inevitable reference to my suit/trainers combo at the works party: Fuck you, I looked awesome.

[Cube]

Most people can't handle the awesomeness of a suit/trainers combo.

[MoogleViper]

Personally, I would expect the photographer to be in a dress/tux and therefore would require good shows. You don't want them turning up in jeans/t-shirt/trainers.

 

Or nothing at all as they can't afford clothes.

 

But many people have to wear a suit/uniform. And they have to wear it every day. Far more wear and tear.

 

Let's take the average salary of ?24000. After tax and NI that's about ?17000 (estimate).

 

They pay ?6000 a year rent for a flat (?11000)

 

?5000 goes on a car an insurance (?6000)

 

They pay ?1000 on fuel commuting (?5000)

 

They spend ?500 on suits and uniforms (?4500)

 

They need high speed internet/mobile phone to work from home and on the go at ?1500 (less than her estimate of $2500) (?3000)

 

So does a person on an average salary of ?24k actually earn ?3k a year (much less than her $7k per quarter)? No of course they fucking don't, because that would be stupid.