The State of Wedding Photography

[Paul Jenkin]

I have one 8x10 hand-tinted print of my mum and dad's marriage in 1948. That's it. I don't know if there were any others. The story I was told is that the shot was taken by the local newspaper guy, they bought a copy and my dad did the colouring-in. It's a nice photo and tells me everything I need to know about two people whose love never ceased.

I got married two years ago. I love taking photos but detest being in them. My wife is equally unhappy about being the centre of photographic attention, so I took our wedding photos outside the Registry Office. Armed with a tripod and in-camera self-timer, I took about 20 shots and have processed about half a dozen. Admittedly, it was a very quiet wedding - just six of us present on the day.

I also took shots at the "wedding breakfast" afterwards and on honeymoon. Our album, limited in photo numbers as it is, tells the whole story from the wedding through to doing our PADI Open Water diving qualification on honeymoon in the Maldives.

Quality, not quantity, is what counts for my missus and me. I doubt we are unique. Albums that run to 70+ photos are, in my opinion, completely unnecessary and verging on the nacissistic.

[rjphil]

On a side note,
I remember a guy by the name of Rocky Gunn who for his time was quite unique. His style reminds me of a lot of the work I see today.
He had a crew that basically worked with him from wedding to wedding, There were the technical assistants that would take the family groups, and cover the basic story with precision , and then Rocky would roll in with a couple of assistants for an hour or two max and shoot the creatives with the bride and groom, He was very popular and charged large.
I always wonder what happened to him.

Bob - I met Rocky at the old PPA Winona School in Indiana (I was on summer staff there). Great guy, lots of energy. He was one of the first ones I saw that wanted to get the bride and groom together before the wedding to do really different formals, outdoors in hayfields, along the shore, wherever they wanted.
Very cool work. Sadly he died in the early 80s at 42. Nice guy.

[Bob Carnie]

He was unique for the times and a bundle of energy.
He would show up for weddings in a souped up Van with all his gear, bluejeans white tshirt and walk away with the bride and groom for an hour, then he would go to the next.
He did not shoot any of the formals and I think he hired the best technical shooters he could find for this so the Bride and Groom did get a very balanced offering.
A very good talent to die at 42.


Bob - I met Rocky at the old PPA Winona School in Indiana (I was on summer staff there). Great guy, lots of energy. He was one of the first ones I saw that wanted to get the bride and groom together before the wedding to do really different formals, outdoors in hayfields, along the shore, wherever they wanted.
Very cool work. Sadly he died in the early 80s at 42. Nice guy.

[Ken N]

This is a tough one for me. I'm partnering with another photographer and do the usual 1800+ digital shots per wedding stuff. It's what the market demands if you want to be a regular wedding-mill photographer.

But my heart is in shooting weddings on film. I typically top out at 400-500 pictures and that seems like millions. Frankly, beyond 250 I'm just wasting film.

The key to survival in promoting film is that it is something special, not a thing of not being current.

All this me too digital sameness is so nauseating. It's ultra clean, easier to shoot and does give a better product overall, but it just looks so boring. No character to speak of. In fact, that's the whole goal behind buying the best possible digital camera--there is no character you have to work around.

You might as well photograph a child's Barbie Doll collection. You end up with the same look.

[jolefler]

(kicking and screaming) to the wedding shoot scenario on three occasions in the past year.

FWIW, those three couples were of lesser means and had no affordable options offered to them by other local professionals. All of the options offered by the wedding specialists were more than $2000. One young lady said,
"$2000!, that's as much as I'm spending on the entire ceremony!"

Perhaps the industry would benefit from reducing their proof count by a considerable amount in order to make an affordable package.

I gave two weddings away to close friends, and charged $300 for the one that was for a referral from another friend. Each of those packages contained 30-4X5s from digital and 30-5x5s from negatives in a modest album. I also included 2-8x10s from digital and one 8X10 silver gelatin, all matted to
11X14. A CD of watermarked images was also included.

Granted, I didn't make enough on the $300 wedding to base a business model, but sure could by padding it by $150-300! No one had any problem with only 60 prints of my choice in the album, or the # of enlargements.

Take the above as a suggestion/note for those in the trade. I don't want to be! ;)

Jo

[Denis K]

They seem to have the most value to the generations that follow. In the end, a couple of good black and whites is all I want...

Sixteen pictures of a little kid, each just slightly different than the last. Ugh!

I couldn't agree more. I lost my father during my second year at university, and I have but three photos of him. One was taken in theater during the WWII and the other two were taken during his wedding; by whom I don’t know. The wedding picture I like best is one where he is standing alone, in profile, in the grass behind the garden apartment where he has a reception following the ceremony. That picture is special to me because, as I know my father, I know the picture captures him as he was in life, and is not some quirky candid moment.

In my opinion, there is nothing that will destroy the value of a picture more than having a few similar ones like it. If I could give fathers everywhere advice, it would be to remain camera shy, but to have a very few pictures to pass along to their children.

Denis K

[Ken N]

Granted, I didn't make enough on the $300 wedding to base a business model, but sure could by padding it by $150-300! No one had any problem with only 60 prints of my choice in the album, or the # of enlargements.
Jo


I have a day job so photography is a side-line business for me. As such, I consider the minimum amount I need to clear from a wedding is $500 just to be worth the hassle and time. If I was strictly photography-based in my income, I'd need no less than $1000 net profit per wedding. If I was strictly a wedding photographer, I'd need no less than $2000 net profit per wedding.

We're talking NET PROFIT here, not what I'm charging them. This isn't greed, this is just to maintain a comfortable household income.

In the case of wedding photography, you can usually figure on 50% cost-basis, (depending on your staffing of second shooters), so take those net profit figures and double them. That's what you need to be charging the customers.

[wclark5179]

"Perhaps the industry would benefit from reducing their proof count by a considerable amount in order to make an affordable package."

Good idea!

I don't make paper "proofs" anymore. Haven't for several years.

What I've done is look back from previous years, more than 5 years, re-print sales, determined my bottom line profit, averaged it out, then added that number to my "packages" and now offer photographs on DVD's.

Still receive album orders and large size (> 8/10) print orders. Some of my investment points include an album while others do not. It's the clients choice. Though albums aren't as profitable as the time spent making them as I could easily do another wedding in less time & earn more money.

Yes, the business has changed! For the better, at least through my eyes.

[clayne]

You know what's incredibly insane? Having to edit through 1500+ images. We're not even talking post processing - just editing and initial sorting. How this is somehow amazingly faster than 100-200 frames on film is a mystery to me.

Fact is, if it is faster it's because 85% of the images are trash and easy to sort through. Let's be real, nobody is shooting 500 keepers out of 1500. Just to find the gems among a sea of images takes considerable time itself.

Limitations are your friend not your enemy.

[naugastyle]

I recently went to my close friends' destination wedding, where after shooting perhaps 300 photos I culled down to 75--covering the entire weekend of events and just drunken hangout time. The pro photographer really did submit about 1000 of ONLY "getting ready," ceremony, and reception--and since there were no blinking shots I assume this was still edited down. In truth, though, I do think the couple preferred the digital shots because there was a lot of glamorizing going on--super high-key, vaseline-style (which at our relatively young age is completely unnecessary). So I too think it has lots to do with changing attitudes of the bride (and sometimes groom) and not necessarily something the wedding photographers are forcing.

Of course I prefer quality over quantity, but don't think the quantity needs to be SO severely reduced. If I ever get married I'm down with the city-hall-and-pizza version, but for most people this one day is hugely important. My parents have only perhaps two posed studio shots in their wedding gear, which have nice color and they look great, but totally stiff. Perhaps early 70s Taiwanese photography is the same level of sophistication as 50s European/American :). But their book of candid shots--wow. Many are just amazing, and I wouldn't want to lose a single one for the sake of tight editing for the best of the best.

Of course, I doubt there are even 100, let alone 1000...