I dont give anyone a set number either, but despite that I have a pretty good idea of what im going to have based on time and the second shooter with me. Its interesting you say 1000. There have been times when people want alot less then that. Some clients just dont want to look through that many. On average I think im looking at about 500 a wedding. Even though like pointed out some weddings are going to be longer or shorter. Not even mentioning when you cant shoot in the church at all.
Thanks for the imput though.
~Cheers

@Drab, it definitely is.

We usually give about 1000 fully-edited pictures when there are two shooters all day.
As we've become more experienced, we're finding that our percentage of keepers is getting higher and editing takes less time, so our delivered shot count goes up.
We used to promise a certain amount of images, but we were always way over, so we dropped that.
It's pretty dangerous to guarantee a set amount. I once had a ceremony that was literally 4 minutes long - you're not going to get as many pictures of one like that compared to a 2 hour Catholic Mass ceremony even if you're holding the shutter down for the full 4 minutes!

I mean for your average wedding, lets say 5-7 hours I would say the bride and groom could expect somewhere between 350-1000 for a more editorial style and 200-400 if they wanted a more "posed" shots.
If they wanted more or less then that would just change the way and what I was shooting.
That would be my answer=)
~Cheers

Isn't that a "how long is a piece of string" type question?

Bringing up a old thread because its inline with the question...

How many photos..."(average)" do you guys give to the bride and groom at a wedding. Do you have a set number you tell them and then give them more or the best photos of that number.

I will start things off. I always talk to the bride and groom before hand and see how many they would want to see if we are on the same page. I will make sure that I have that many to give them which never has seemed to be a problem. I always start at the best and work down. Get best first till you get around their number and then start working with what you want to add after that.

Long story short if they want 200 photos lets say, they will get the 200 best and then I will add what I think carry the event as a whole If I want to add more.

Perhaps this Zack Arias article about "Cheap Photographers only kill themselves", will be of interest to those hoping to make a living.
zarias dot com /cheap-photographers-only-kill-themselves-not-the-industry

Here is an article that you might also find interesting
junshien dot com /1231/10-reasons-not-to-become-a-professional-photographer/

Joe

Its not fair in all aspects to compare a photographers pay to some others. Like the union member, or anyone that has part of their benefits covered they are not taking home the whole amount. Not as much though. They also have to have certain tools for the job and need to drive to different locations.

I probably am. After rereading your post when I read that I was thinking we were probably saying the same thing. I had originally read that as the photographer making $104 and hour, which is far from what they actually "take home".

JorPet said:
That $104 per hour has to pay for everything, it is not a wage. From that the photographer has to pay for vacation, sick time, retirement funds, insurance, equipment, transportation, possibly legal and accounting help. Actual wage would work out to something around $50 and hour. Not bad, but not great either.

Those union workers get that hourly wage, plus time and half for anything over 8 hours, plus sick leave, vacation time and pension plans. When you work it out apples to apples, your photographer was probably right on par with the broom pusher.

Are you making my point for me or not? ;)

Yes, the friends would have been considered pros as that was all they did at that time. 100 weddings or more a year, even at $500-??? would have been a decent living at the time. I think they did portraits as well, seemed like they were busy nearly 7 days a week through a lot of the year.

Oh, and I'm a Seattle native born and raised. Love the Columbia River Gorge, go skiing up aMt Hood a couple times a year. Often go down the East Side of the Cascades and then through the Dalles on the way, absolutely beautiful terrain all along.

I am a indeed a oregon native. The weather is amazing(when its not raining, which happens to be most of the time) the columbia river gorge has some of the most amazing views aka backdrops in the country and the ocean and mountains just seem to be right around the corner....
Thats a great price and it sounds like you got a good deal.
Thats one reason the amateurs vs pros gets difficult for both prices and picking who to go with. Even though your friends got you amazing photos would they be considered pro's?

So sometimes if you get the right photographer when they are starting out then you just might get someone who is going to be way out of your reach money wise when they are big. Goes back to the just because your a pro does not mean you act professionally,I think sometimes it can go the other way also.

Aetes, agree (and the Iron Worker number were brought up earlier, but are a valid way of comparing value, like the Economist's Big Mac index).

My wife and I paid $500 for our photographer 23 years ago. They were my parents' next door neighbors and happened to be Deacons at the church we got married in. This was a great advantage as they shot almost 100 weddings a year there and really knew the church.

For that price we got their time at the wedding and the reception. Then we were handed the proofs and we ordered from those. Seems they threw in a couple prints as our wedding gift and then everything else was per a price list. Seemed very fair then and still seems fair to me.

Funny thing was they finally decided to retire about 10 years ago and asked if we wanted all of our proofs and the negatives. Not something you normally ever got back in the film days. We have the whole bunch split between our parents' houses for safe keeping.

By the way, are you in Oregon? I was down in Salem last week visiting my parents. Love it down there.

Total package(with benefits) is around 60.00 for a Union Ironworker in oregon. Its about average for the nation.
Total package for a Union Laborer is around 30.00.

Im sure on the ironworker not so much on the laborer.

Either way I know when I go home (hopefully) as a ironworker I can forget about the job. I dont have to stress, or edit.

Not that any of the above is on topic...

I can see where someone that is making 50.00 plus a hour could make a descent living and be considered a pro by definition.

Where the person asking 150 for a wedding of five hours. Is looking at 30.00 a hour not even including drive time, editing time, expense.
~Cheers

Testing123 said:
...
That's $104 per man hour.

That's about twice what an union Iron Worker gets paid here in Washington state according to a prevailing wage table, or about three times what the lowest journeyman in the union house, a laborer, gets.

I'm totally cool with paying a skilled artisan with a demonstrated commitment to the job three times what I'd pay an unskilled broom-pusher with a demonstrated commitment to the job.

That $104 per hour has to pay for everything, it is not a wage. From that the photographer has to pay for vacation, sick time, retirement funds, insurance, equipment, transportation, possibly legal and accounting help. Actual wage would work out to something around $50 and hour. Not bad, but not great either.

Those union workers get that hourly wage, plus time and half for anything over 8 hours, plus sick leave, vacation time and pension plans. When you work it out apples to apples, your photographer was probably right on par with the broom pusher.

studio460 said:
I would REALLY appreciate a PM of this guy's contact info! (I'm supposed to marry my GF in Hawaii someday).

Below is the weblink to the photographer that we are using for our daughters wedding:

*Link Removed*

We are using the Premiere Package, but he is providing us with approximately 9 hours of time at the wedding.

Testing123 said:
This isn't a fork, I promise:

How many man hours does everybody think is involved in the end-to-end production of a wedding package?

When my wife and I got married we had about five hours with the photographer and her assistant. So that's 10.
Plus I'd GUESS about 10-15 total for the back-end production of book and prints.

So let's call it 25.

We paid $2600 for the package in 2009 dollars according to the US CPI.

That's $104 per man hour.

That's about twice what an union Iron Worker gets paid here in Washington state according to a prevailing wage table, or about three times what the lowest journeyman in the union house, a laborer, gets.

I'm totally cool with paying a skilled artisan with a demonstrated commitment to the job three times what I'd pay an unskilled broom-pusher with a demonstrated commitment to the job.

====================
I understand that the average post processing time of images is 2-3 times the hours spent actually shooting a wedding, not including album design, slide-shows, and other product.

Unfortunately my factor is much higher. Perhaps as I get more experience with in camera shooting and the software tools, and become less of a perfectionist, it will come down.

However, there is a lot of time and expenses involved that goes well beyond the post processing of the digital images; which adds substantially to the cost of running a photography business that should be considered by those interested in starting a venture such as this.

Again as has been previously said, it is important to check the end product of the photographer as the primary reason for selecting them. This is what you will be looking at years down the road.

Joe
=====

This isn't a fork, I promise:

How many man hours does everybody think is involved in the end-to-end production of a wedding package?

When my wife and I got married we had about five hours with the photographer and her assistant. So that's 10.
Plus I'd GUESS about 10-15 total for the back-end production of book and prints.

So let's call it 25.

We paid $2600 for the package in 2009 dollars according to the US CPI.

That's $104 per man hour.

That's about twice what an union Iron Worker gets paid here in Washington state according to a prevailing wage table, or about three times what the lowest journeyman in the union house, a laborer, gets.

I'm totally cool with paying a skilled artisan with a demonstrated commitment to the job three times what I'd pay an unskilled broom-pusher with a demonstrated commitment to the job.

The more I read this topic the more I consider of going to US for work. In Poland, if You doesn't work in the capital max You can get is app $500-$750. In capital You can get app $1000-$1500 per wedding. To hire a medium format is app $500/day (camera + guy who is responsible for this camera). So for $5000 it is actually worth it to come over to US for wedding weekend, at least I wouldn't mind to haul my ass. Anybody interested :)

Henry Nikon Fan said:
This is an interesting topic for this forum, but one that has struck a chord with me. My daughter is getting married August 12th in Hawaii. I work with someone who has recommended a photographer to me that she used in Hawaii and was very pleased with his work. She has loaned us the bound album that the photographer provided to her and it appeared to be very well done. He is charging us $1,500.00 for the wedding. He will be on site at the Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel from 2:30 p.m. for prewedding events to 11:30 p.m. for the conclusion of the dinner reception. He will be providing us with an album of all prints taken, a CD of all prints taken and a bound album of the event after we have approved the layout.

I would REALLY appreciate a PM of this guy's contact info! (I'm supposed to marry my GF in Hawaii someday).

kyoshinikon said:
Around here the average price for a good wedding photog is roughly 5K. You can get a good one for as little as $1700 and a fantastic one for $25,000.

I haven't read every word of this thread yet, because I was just scanning for some quick numbers. A girl at work just hired a photographer for her upcoming, Los Angeles-area wedding: $5,000. An acquaintance of mine (who also shoots celebrity events) shoots rich people's weddings. His fee starts at $20,000. He hires two guys with Hasselblads to shoot the "standard stuff," and he shoots all the candids with Leicas (all-digital, I presume).

When I used to hire photographers in my marketing job, I paid about $1,200/day for both medium-format and 4x5 deliverables (this was before digital). The least amount I ever paid a photographer was $800/day (I couldn't find anyone who would work for less than $800/day). In my TV job, I pay electricians $550/day; gaffers, $800/day. Camera operators typically make only $400-600/day.

Fee structures in still photography are an odd thing. There are "standard" rates, but it much depends on how high the ladder you're on. Agency work and national magazine work seem to run anywhere from about $4,000-$7,000/day (I shoot behind-the-scenes with these guys all the time). They typically have more than two assistants. They walk in, point at stuff for about a half-hour, shoot for an hour or two, and then go home, while their assistants pack up all the rental gear. You can see why I'd like to someday transition to shooting stills for a living, rather than TV.

SkintBrit said:
[...]
NOTHING has a price, it's only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. As has been said, supply and demand is a great leveller.
[...]

couldn't said it better myself, moreover IMHO the costs are higher today than they were in the film era. Back in the 90's Your only cost was camera + lenses + film, once You got a pro equipment You could use it for 8 years (that was the life cycle of Nikon pro bodies). Today, You need to spend much more, and the competition is much tougher than it was couple years ago. Not to mention that clients perspective changed. They demand more and more. All pictures perfectly in focus, nailed exposure, perfect composition and preferably delivered to client's mailbox on Monday. I'm not saying that's not good that ppl educate and demand. I'm only saying that no one should expect that this kind of service is will be cheap. I'm not a pro wedding shooter, but I do couple of weddings annually, and I know that I need to spend at least as much time in PP as behind camera.

I agree with mike. If you have a set hourly price but another price tier for weddings then this should be brought to their attention. It is possible that they did not know your prices changed based on event and did not do anything intentional.

This is a fine example of how a pro photographer would handle a situation compared to an amateur. A pro would confront the people respectfully and talk about the situation where a amateur would just start going straight to the im going to sue you if I dont give me my wedding price.

I hope this turns out well for you, or at least fair. Keep us informed what what happens.
~Cheers

Jeff H said:
Maybe, I should pose it this way. If time is the commodity that drives our fee, then should a wedding garner the same fee as any other event requiring the same allotted time.

Hi Jeff,

I don't know whether Niko wants this here or a new thread. But...

It strikes me that you are the driver of your prices. I charge by the hour for routine work portraits, weddings, whatever, content used for advertising and publishing negotiated for rights. I don't think I would make much on reprints (as one would 15-20 years ago), and most people know how to use Snapfish or whatever for prints.

How you do your prices is your business, and you should be comfortable doing it.

What concerns me is that your customer may have circumvented your wedding price list by hiring by the hour.

If ours is an hourly-driven business, it shouldn't matter (in my case - it doesn't), but in your case, you likely derive rights income from 'wedding' prices that you wouldn't from 'hourly' prices. That's the discussion you'll likely have with them.

My best,

Mike

Maybe, I should pose it this way. If time is the commodity that drives our fee, then should a wedding garner the same fee as any other event requiring the same allotted time.

Niko, I disagree and I agree with you at the same time. Thanks.