Wedding Photography
- Started
- Last post
- 36 Responses
- FawnDog
So my friend just got back from her sisters wedding and told me that the wedding photographer was costing them $7000. for the day. He said he had to charge that because he is shooting everything on film and that digital never looks as good.
Does this seem like an outrageous price for a wedding photographer ?
- 20020
not for someone using film.
- mg330
Forget the price. That statement about shooting film and not digital is such bullshit.
- He prefers film. If you feel digital is as good, hire someone who shoots digital.nb
- Fine. That's fair. But dozens of photographers doing equally good digital work could have been found instead I'd guess.mg33
- Agreed. But, digital doesn't look like film. Most people don't think either is "better" but they are a bit different.nb
- Digital doesn't look like film? Now it does: http://webdesignledg…mg33
- even better: http://visualsupply.…Jacque
- Film looks better.newuser
- nb0
No, not really. Prices vary based on talent.
- ESKEMA0
lol at shooting everything on film in a wedding these days. Your friend is hiring an artist.
- mg330
I see it like this: The guy is trying to make the case that anything other than film would result in lower quality, therefore, because he cares so much about quality, it requires a premium price. And that's fine.
But the fact is, dozens of photographers doing 100% digital could have also been found that would probably satisfy them just as much and cost them less. My feeling is that this guy saw an opportunity to maximize his return - which is also fine - but I'd be interested to know if he did that by stating untrue things about digital format.
- _niko0
send us their link and we'll gladly judge :)
- 20020
From a film wedding photo guy
Most digital photo guys shoot and not worry about how the shot is going to look because they think they can fix it in post. When I shoot film, I consider not doing a lot of work in post. It would be pointless for me to shoot in film, scan and post. I try to get the right shot when I shoot it.
- hahahahah are you aiming for me deliberately, or laying out a bomb for everyone here?bigtrick
- not everything is about YOU.
Get a grip.2002 - 2002 takes only a single photo during the whole wedding with his leica.bigtrick
- ...but it's the best possible photo.bigtrick
- someone is little insecure.2002
- oh my bad. i thought you were saying that you were the film wedding photo guy.bigtrick
- Note the "From a film wedding photo guy"2002
- how am i supposed to know what identity you are supposed to havebigtrick
- http://cdn.crushable…2002
- bigtrick0
he charges $7k because he is a high end photographer. if his photos look like they're worth $7k to his client, then he's not too expensive. film vs. digital doesn't really have anything to do with that figure, despite his claims.
- bigtrick0
(speaking as a wedding photographer that uses digital)
- Jacque0
I prefer shooting film personally, but for my wedding – that one day out of my life – I could not give a flying fuck what medium the photographer used as long as the photos didn't look ass.
Besides, when those photos are uploaded to Facebook no one is gonna be able to tell with that down sampled shit.
- 20020
- ESKEMA0
The Best scenario would be doing the whole coverage in digital, because, hey, we have that now so let's embrace it and shoot everything that happensas it happens without thinking too mucj about it. AND, use film for 10/20 pictures that are more worthy, like important portraits etc.
- _niko0
- You simply can NOT get a photo like that for less than $12,500.nb
- needs selective colorJacque
- hhaahacruddlebub
- mg331
- 20020
- vaxorcist0
If he gets people to pay $7k, then that's what he's worth to them!
Note also that many higher-end wedding photographers have a style of interaction with people that's different, their higher-status clients like the way these photographers are comfortable with wealthy powerful people... and can work fast, discreetly and they do not spend 15 minutes asking their subjects to move around for the group shots.... or make anyone wait for lighting,etc... you can't make wealthy clients wait in any way except if you're obviously an artist who already has their respect....
Once upon a time, I shot weddings on film, and worked in a lab developing lots of film for wedding photographers who shot color negative.... yes, there is a certain skin tone that can be smoother due to slightly over-exposed color negative film that's not too easy to duplicate in digital....
but yes, it's market position, style, value perception, value as interaction experience,etc....
and hey, congrats to this photographer(!).... he may also price high so he doesn't burn out, shooting a film wedding every weekend with the current level of expectation would burn people out, as digital has raised people's expectations from wedding photographers in terms of what's possible (high iso, huge number of photos,etc)
- FawnDog0
Here is an update. The wedding couple has not seen their photos yet. The photographer has taken off to France for another job. The bride (pissed off) made everyone dress up in their wedding suits/dresses and go back to the site to redo all the photos with a new photographer.
Makes me glad I got married at the drive thru in Vegas
- l. o. l.Jacque
- classic.sea_sea
- dude you did drive thru?! i've always wanted to do that in a convertible with elvis at the window. LOLsea_sea
- yes...but didn't book the Elvis and caddy. It cost $40.FawnDog
- no, after all thatwhatthefunk
- sea_sea0
i bet he fucked up the film and ran with the moola.
i hope they have a contract.