OK - so I have the right gear - back up camera /lenses/flashes, got the public liability and indemnity insurance. Done some training, won some competitions, been published in national/international magazines, made a bit of money from covering events for major companies, council organisations and done some hotel shoots. Then I shoot a few weddings and find I love them - great chance to be creative and really capture the joy of the day. I think why avoid them - they are hard work, long days but what the hell! I love them and I can do them! I don`t need a 2nd income so I target the lower / middle end of the market as I build aiming to give best quality at affordable prices to people who might be vulnerable to sharks / ne`er do wells. As I get ready to go on a publicity launch I read a few posts about there being " too many wedding photographers" around. The world and his dog have a camera and there is always a student, relative willing to shoot (or could that be ruin) the big day for someone. I see some brides on wedding sites talking about the great (expensive venue), the wedding planner, the make up artists, the expensive honeymoons and what brings them together is moaning about why they cannot get a photographer for under £350. Seems I am the wrong demographic too - male and over 50! Might as well give up now!
What do you think - is the market over-saturated for these times of recession? Is there no place for quality wedding photography in these days of dominance of "reportage style" using lightroom presets. Should I be leaving it to people willing to shoot for next to nothing, cutting corners and travelling light with no back up, no insurance and little thought for their customer?
Whatever might be said I am in the market and will remain eager to provide a quality service at an affordable price to anyone that wants to use me and will not be shooting for free /experience or portfolio building from now on. I`ll offer mates rates when relevant and work hard to tailor fit my services to client`s needs and see what develops - wish me luck!
I think that part of the reason wedding photography budgets are shrinking is because of the economy. I think the other reason why people don't want to pay a professional wedding photographer's premium is that even if you DO hire someone who has spent 5 or more years in the business there really are no guarantees. By contrast, people pretty much expect that the venue will not burn down when they reserve it. Or that the limo will break down.
ReplyDeleteHere's the reality: People do not know what to expect from a photographer. With the law of numbers being what they are, anyone can build a photography portfolio if they work long and hard enough at it. As a bride and groom, that doesn't mean the photos will be representational of YOUR day.
I have seen so-called professionals screw things up and I have seen so-called amateurs benefit from a great deal of beginner's luck. With that in mind, here's the bottom line:
1) The bridal couple may think that with so many guests and so many digital camera operators they already have their bases covered and shouldn't have to fork over a premium that implies only one person will come equipped to capture decent photos. (Whether or not this is true is not the point --- it's about perception.)
2) The bride and groom just don't want to pay a premium for uncertainty. There are simply too many things that can go wrong, not to mention how fickle people are in their tastes. You might take a perfectly good photo but the bride is convinced it made her look fat or was taken on her "bad side" --- or that the groom doesn't really have a natural expression on his face, grandma's eyes are closed, etc. Even at bargain-bin photo pricing nobody wants to suffer the disappointment of bad wedding-day photos.
For what it's worth, wedding photographers who charge a premium but treat it more like a team sport --- with more than one qualified photographer to capture a single event from start to finish --- would greatly reduce uncertainty and thus convince their clients to fork over a more reasonable fee. You can get away with charging the big bucks if you work in concert with other photographers whereas it is hard to fork over as little as $800 for a lone operator who very well may become tied up traffic, come down sick, suffer a camera malfunction or miss valuable moments because he/she simply cannot be in two places at once.