Wedding photography rates

[ricktas]

Whilst there is often discussion about 'what to charge', we also see regularly, cheap rates being discussed for photography in general, but also often for weddings.

There must be a line between cheap and reasonable, Considering all the work that goes into photographing a wedding, and then editing those photos, along with the associated meetings with the couple, provision of photos on disk, as prints, and in album form, what would you consider to be the LOWEST price that you would pay a wedding photographer.

There must be a point at which, cheap price means cheap looking results.

So if you were planning a wedding today, what would be the cheapest price you would consider paying a wedding photographer, based on wanting good quality results, both in original image quality (compositions, focus, etc) and post processing quality. After all their must be a perceived point where value and quality meet.

The two ends of the range must have a mid-point where cheap and nasty, or over-priced, meet and offer quality and value at a reasonable price. Where do you see that price point?

[Rattus79]

I chose under $2500 as that's about what I paid for ours. (he's since changed his pricing structure and is closer to $4000 now)

The photographer was our single largest cost for the wedding.

[Mat]

I think about $1800 is the base area if you want to have some quality shots. Sure there might be some cheaper that are also good quality just as there would be some that could charge more for lesser quality but to put it into a broad ball park I chose under $2500.

[virgal_tracy]

I think the question is incomplete. I know where you are going with it but there are a few variables that are missing. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from your description that you are basing the pricing structures on a shoot and burn package without any products. There are many photographers that don't offer shoot & burn but include products into their package eg. albums, proof books, images etc.

I know you mentioned products in your original description but are we looking at what we would pay for a wedding package (images, disk, proofs, album) or what we perceive the skills of the photographer to be worth and therefore what would we pay them to photograph our wedding.

For what it is worth I chose under $5k. I payed a little over $1k for my wedding (at the beginning of the digital era with about 100 digital images and 17 rolls of film with negatives supplied, proof images + 2 24 x 16 prints) admittedly this was for a midweek wedding and was a much cheaper price than the regular weekend prices. I always placed value on photography but probably not as much as I do now.

[extraball]

I would expect to pay at least 1500, anything done for less would probably be dodgy.

[ricktas]

I think the question is incomplete. I know where you are going with it but there are a few variables that are missing. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from your description that you are basing the pricing structures on a shoot and burn package without any products. There are many photographers that don't offer shoot & burn but include products into their package eg. albums, proof books, images etc.

I know you mentioned products in your original description but are we looking at what we would pay for a wedding package (images, disk, proofs, album) or what we perceive the skills of the photographer to be worth and therefore what would we pay them to photograph our wedding.

For what it is worth I chose under $5k. I payed a little over $1k for my wedding (at the beginning of the digital era with about 100 digital images and 17 rolls of film with negatives supplied, proof images + 2 24 x 16 prints) admittedly this was for a midweek wedding and was a much cheaper price than the regular weekend prices. I always placed value on photography but probably not as much as I do now.

I agree there are lots of variables, but I was interested in seeing where people see a perceived value for money/quality price point beginning.

[alsocass]

I paid $1200 for our photos ten years ago. That was at mates rates (pretty much half price).

Until recently I had no idea what photography entailed (especially the post-production), and would have chosen under $1500. Now I get it, I have seen good and bad photos and I know that you have to pay for good ones.

I think if you polled non-photographers you would get a very different answer.

[Warbler]

Anyone can shoot weddings if they have an iPhone.

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/2355497650/photographer-50-weddings-one-day

[JasonR]

A friend of mine payed 10k for her wedding photos. They were nice photos but I couldn't justify 10k.
Some other friends got married recently and paid 3k and I'd say 70% of the photos are not focused properly and edited really poorly.

[snappysi]

I Paid $1200 for our photographer just under 2 years ago. We got a discount as my wife won a competition that was run from a wedding expo she attended. ( Must point out that the discount did not asure we booked with this person, we still looked at his port to see if we liked his style. The discount turned out to be a bonus ) I also did a deal in that the photographer shot the day and then handed over the shots for me to edit. it worked out for both of us that way. Would i do that... prob not, would you.. maybe not., but that was the deal we struck and he was happy with this.

Simon.

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's not a simple question. I spent close to $5k on mine, but we originally budgeted for a max of $3k.

In my research I came across some around $1500 which had great shots and also had good feedback on forums (though I figure paying more is likely to give you a 'tog who can handle the difficult situations/specific requests better, handle families better and is an overall more professional package). Not sure how many photos were edited, but blogs/full photo shoots online were good (I don't take much stock in a portfolio; it's a full blog which I want to see)

Personally, I just feel that $1500 is in the 'real budget' variety, so while I might have gone that low, I think I'd feel a bit uncomfortable going below $2k.

The prices I'm talking about include an album and disc of some sort, just to give some idea of where I'm at.

[Longshots]

Consumers drive the market and its up to you as the photographer to decide what you will work for and what actually earns you some money. Weddings for me are not a money maker by any stretch of the imagination as I personally put a great deal of effort into them, an effort that I dont charge appropriately for (in hindsight). Sure I could just process everything as I capture in it camera, as 99% of my shots I nail the exposure (and I should be able to do that having grown up on film and especially transparency capture where there is virtually zero room for error). But I dont, because I choose not to, because I have the ability to improve virtually every shot.

So I spend time additional time on pre production meetings, pre production recces, and then day of the event, its been 16 hours in general, then post production, I indulge and take a great deal of time on every single shot - all because I can, and all because I choose to. Thats what my clients want, they chose me for that approach.

So is the fee I charge for each wedding worthwhile ? To me, Yes. But its borderline if I was comparing it with my other work. What I would be prepared to work for in all honesty would be dependent on so many factors ( as I'm sure any self employed person would understand ) - have I been heavily booked ? have I received a swathe of bills which all need to be paid ? do I like the client / do I not warm to the client ? am I hungry for work ? do I like the location ? or was the last time I shooting at that same location treated like a piece of dog crap by the venue ?

I assure you that all of those particular inputs would depend on my willingness to negotiate a lower rate to the one that I might initially quote.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I wasn't sure how to answer either. Marianne and I paid just under 3K for a package that we were more than happy with and don't charge as much
Our rates do depend on - time of coverage, reception coverage, any other additions like canvas prints, albums, thank you cards etc. - if people wanted all of the above and full day coverage, it would come to significantly more than the 1500 I marked down in the poll. But if they just wanted a few hours coverage with just low res proofs and a few high res files of their choice, the 1500 ballpark seems reasonable.

As an exercise, we worked out that our last wedding of 5 hours shooting included 2 1 hour meetings prior (1 on booking, 1 closer to the date as a walkthrough), we ended up giving 500 proofs - editing on average took 3 minutes a picture (ranging from literally 1 click action for some , to 20-30 minutes on others) - which meant that they were really paying for 30+ hours of our time.

[Tony B]

I chose under $2500 as that's about what I paid for ours. (he's since changed his pricing structure and is closer to $4000 now)

The photographer was our single largest cost for the wedding.

Charging $4ooo one would need only to work 1 day per week. I was a full time salaried photographer in the 70's & have been a sport coach for 25 years participating in 5 sports at a national/international level . If I tried to charge that fee for a similar time of work I would be laughed at. I blame an uneducated public that gets what it deserves as far as any photographer is concerned. The only reason I am not a photographer is that I earnt more as an accountant prior to sport coaching that enables me now to live a life of ease. I was a photogrpher when we got it right in camera & did not need to spend hours processing. A wedding took a couple of hours & one did 3 or 4 on a Saturday.

[JM Tran]

Charging $4ooo one would need only to work 1 day per week. I was a full time salaried photographer in the 70's & have been a sport coach for 25 years participating in 5 sports at a national/international level . If I tried to charge that fee for a similar time of work I would be laughed at. I blame an uneducated public that gets what it deserves as far as any photographer is concerned. The only reason I am not a photographer is that I earnt more as an accountant prior to sport coaching that enables me now to live a life of ease. I was a photogrpher when we got it right in camera & did not need to spend hours processing. A wedding took a couple of hours & one did 3 or 4 on a Saturday.


I dont agree with your comment re. getting it right in the camera and not needing to spend hours in processing.

I charge 4-5k per wedding, 20 a year, I get it right in the camera - but I also spend time processing/editing to further improve the photo to the highest standard of my creative work as possible.

In case you didnt know, getting it right in camera on RAW is not that hard to do, but deciding to print it straight out of camera is gonna leave the client with a very flat looking image and not deserving of the high price tag I charge. Im sure you ALSO have spent a lot of time in dark rooms in your days.

Times have changed, and quality of photography overall has improved, as well as client demands and expectations. Last weekend I did a 16 hour wedding, this week will be about 12 hours for 1 wedding, and so on. Impossible to find a wedding that is a few hours to fit in a few weddings on a Saturday like you mentioned. Unless it is rock bottom budget weddings for shoot and burn and charge for a few hundred dollars each, waste of time and effort and expenses.

[ricktas]

I always wondered why the wedding albums from the 70's were nothing to hold up as a shining example of how a wedding should have been shot. :)

Photography and the world have changed a HUGE amount since the 1970's. So have prices. I have a receipt for a brand spanking New 6cyl Holden Torana from 1971, it is $1100.00. A Commodore is today 30x that amount. Tony, what would have been 30x your wedding rate from the 1970's??

I don't think comparing rates from 40 years ago, or weddings, and processing requirements is a valid way to look at the questions this thread is about. I agree with Jacki, even in the 70's there was more to shooting a wedding than turning up for 2 hours.

Photographers today still have to get it right, in camera, no use presenting an out-of-focus photo as your best work. I would say the pressures on Wedding Photographers are much higher today than in the 70's as well. The expectations for the 'perfect day' have changed and demand a much higher level of attention to detail and quality. People have more income and are willing to spend more to get that 'perfect day' than they had in the 1970's.

But the whole point of this thread was to see where we see the appropriate lowest $ amount a wedding photographer should charge. A balance between price and quality. Looking at the results, it would seem that value for money and an expectation of good quality results happens between $1500 - $2500.

[geoffsta]

it would seem that value for money and an expectation of good quality results happens between $1500 - $2500.

After being at a wedding 4 months ago, and knowing the couple paid $2000 for their photographer. I think that <$2500 is get what you pay for.
The couple still haven't recieved their images, apart from a few low res ones they have got from the TOGs website. And from what I have seen of them, they are crap.

My son was a groomsman at one of his friends where the TOG was a friend of the family. They got a special rate for being friends of $4,000. The results were fantastic, considering the day was extremely windy and horrible.
They also got an album and around 200 shots that included all their guests, family and the shots you would expect from a wedding TOG. Normally this guy charges around $6,000. And gets plenty of work in the high society area.
I'd place this guy in the league of Dylan Toh and JMTran.

So if I was to choose a TOG for a wedding. I would expect to pay around $5,000. At least I know (After carefully researching him/her) that I'd get good results.

[jtsroberts]

Our photographer charged around $1500 - a bargain in my opinion. That was mates rates though, where he is normally charging around $2500.

I would have been happy to pay around the $3k mark. Having said that, the most important thing for me would be checking the photographers portfolio to ensure the quality was in line with our expectations.

[ktoopi]

I paid more than $5000 for my wedding photographer 11 years ago......we had a beautiful wood bound album made that stands about 50 cm high and came in it's own briefcase.....i stil LOVE the photos and the album. You get what you pay for most of the time but having said that .....the great wedding photographers had to start somewhere and they thet didn't all start out charging over $5000!!!

I got to meet one of Sydneys top wedding photographers last week as part of a course I am currently doing and his cheapest option is over $4000 for a shoot and burn. Just a DVD and nothing else. His comments to our class were that in his experience most of his clients don't come to him to just get a DVD but very occasionally they do so he offers that package but doesn't advertise it or promote it. His average client spends between $5000 - $10000 and he shoots more than 65 weddings a year!!
I think he's doing ok!!:D

[snappysi]

Can you name them / him ktoopi, would be interested to look at a port if one exists to see the standard of that price range.

Simon.

[mikew09]

To be honest I see three distinct categories. Those in suburb weddings where all the bells and whistles are put on and no expense is spared, those on a true budget where costs here and there have to be controlled, and those in the country where weddings range from really bare base to a modest wedding. The bottom line is in these few cases the the budget for the cost of a photographer fell well below the scope of what might be considered normal. At the end of the day if they cant get a photographer for under $700 they just simple wont hire one and then put some blind faith in the happy snappers attending the wedding. Yes, as horrifying at this is it does occur and the pair really dont have a great expectation of what a wedding photography may deliver. There is a market there, possibly one only to be filled by an amateur photography of relative experience who is simple happy to chase a few bucks to help fund the hobby. I think there lies the issue and a good basis for the term "you get what you pay for". But in extending this thread discussion - would a pro really care if amateurs were cutting these gigs and providing suitable photos that capture the day? I would think not.

[kiwi]

it's really quite hard to compare rates, some just do shoot & burns, some do albums, some make their money of post wedding sales.

[ROA44]

I advised my daughter to get a professional photographer, as when I had my wedding done we used someone under family pressure, who was an acquaintance of the family and we were disappointed with the results. As a result we really had no financial claim. However with a professional you have a chance they will have insurance and a chance of compensation against if they,(1) don't show up, (2) For Got rolled up Late, (3) Drunk (4) No Film / Memory card, (5) Faulty Equipment, (6) Loose/wipe the card. 2 & 3 was a Professional at my first daughters wedding fortunately still came away with some good shots not totally drunk but certainly had a few. + what ever other excuses they come up with. So in my opinion try to get someone who has done a good number of shoots, has a proven record,isn't about to go out of business and whose price fits the budget + a little extra for good luck. If you then think it's worth paying the extra go for it.I am sure members of AP who regularly do weddings can relate the I only wish I had got a reputable/professional to do the job.

[NikonNellie]

I voted under $5000. After doing a shoot and burn wedding for a friend's daughter I came to realise how much hard work a good wedding photographer puts in to get to the final result. I presented the couple with over 500 images - all post processed which meant a lot of time spent at my computer. Sure, with experience I could get much quicker/refined both with the actual shooting and the processing but it would still be a lot of my time, my creativity and my my skill at getting the right images.

Luckily, with 34 years of marriage under my belt, I am not likely to have to pay a tog for wedding images. :D

[Fedgrub]

I would expect to pay at least 1500, anything done for less would probably be dodgy.

I agree with this. Had a similar discussion with a friend recently, where you get what you pay for but unless you know how consistent the photographer is, anything over $2,500 seems a bit excessive.

[Cocoajam]

I agree that you do usually get what you paid for, but sometimes I think that you don't. I have seen packages that cost friends big bucks, and the print they put on the wall has a park bench coming out of the grooms back. Sometimes you get more than you paid for. Someone touched on that when you get a "starter" to do your work for a low cost - they just might not be able to charge the big bucks because they don't have a name yet....

I did my friend's wedding recently - my second wedding only (the first was a disaster, but i was emotionally blackmailed into it before I thought I was ready) - with no charge to them because of my lack of experience. It was a lot of work, but I think I did a pretty good job given I was shooting in the midday, summer sun! I have offered the wedding album as a wedding present, at least that way I still have some control over how they are presented (for future viewing potential). It was a lot of work, and next time I think I will charge something, depending on what the clients want.

[John Witte]

Soon as you say wedding, everythng goes up. The cake, photographer and everything else that goes with it.

[zollo]

photographing and delivering a good quality wedding photography package is legitimately hard work and long hours. those who say otherwise know not of what they speak.

[ricktas]

Soon as you say wedding, everythng goes up. The cake, photographer and everything else that goes with it.

True. But remember most people getting married also want absolute perfection. That comes at a price. Brides can often be the most demanding client anyone has to deal with.. ever.

[nimrodisease]

I got married 3 years ago, and we spent about $1700 on the photographer.

For our money we got:

Photographer at the bride's house in the morning
Two photographers at the ceremony
Family photos etc
Location shoot between ceremony and reception
Photographer for full length of reception
'Crazy booth' at the reception
Engagement shoot several months before the wedding, before we'd even engaged the photographer for the wedding
DVDs of all hi-res images (including engagement shoot and crazy booth)
200 prints at 5x7 (we chose which shots we wanted printed)


We got about 1000 images in total, all of them edited and all of them great photos (some exceptional).

Needless to say, we were very happy with what we got. Maybe his prices have gone up now, I don't know, but I would certainly recommend Ben Adams to anyone: http://www.benadamsweddings.com/

[JM Tran]

I got married 3 years ago, and we spent about $1700 on the photographer.

For our money we got:

Photographer at the bride's house in the morning
Two photographers at the ceremony
Family photos etc
Location shoot between ceremony and reception
Photographer for full length of reception
'Crazy booth' at the reception
Engagement shoot several months before the wedding, before we'd even engaged the photographer for the wedding
DVDs of all hi-res images (including engagement shoot and crazy booth)
200 prints at 5x7 (we chose which shots we wanted printed)


We got about 1000 images in total, all of them edited and all of them great photos (some exceptional).

Needless to say, we were very happy with what we got. Maybe his prices have gone up now, I don't know, but I would certainly recommend Ben Adams to anyone: http://www.benadamsweddings.com/


From my pro wedding point of view, you were lucky to get him at that price. The photographer obviously charged very little and even provided 200 prints at 5x7 inch, which took a small chunk out of his overall $1700. Not to mention the photo booth set up.

I dont mind people providing all of these services, but when you are providing a lot and charging what is perceived to be undercutting the wedding industry, it does no service to other working pros, and overall leads to brides or couples expecting the same for less and less gradually.

Then again, everyone has different levels of satisfaction, one may be satisfied with the work provided at 1700 or 3000 etc, others may not think the quality is of a high standard etc.

At the end of the day, if the couple is happy then its all good, well most of the time. It also helps if the photographer in any genre charges appropriately and not under value their own self worth and product. Because in the long run, it is not sustainable.

[Warbler]

The costs charged for wedding photography are necessarily high because the fixed component is high to start with. Firstly, wedding photographers have to have more than one camera and two lenses. Generally they will have at least two bodies, and more likely three, when they shoot. They will have lenses for low light, so expensive glass, with overlapping FL's for redundancy. They will have two and possible three speedlites. Add into this the costs of their computer gear at home, including the software, the advertising they must do to let people know they're there, divide it by the number of weddings they do each year, and the cost of even turning up is already quite high. Don't forget they also must have back built-in to store the images until they are handed over to the client.

Weekend warriors tend not to add all that in as many just shoot for the price of new gear and a holiday at the end of the year. Many weekenders are very good too, but the trick is picking what suits your needs and peace of mind.

[Tony B]

The 12-16 hour wedding is a modern phenomenon started by some bright photographer who realised they only needed to do one wedding & earn a week's income. To justify their price they supply 500 + images &/or take photos over several days. This is a sign of the times & obviously demand driven.
The whole wedding industry is $$$ driven & some fools & their money easily parted.
My son, in London, was recently asked to attend a Bucks night for which the cost was 1500 pounds STERLING. After the wedding guests were to be flown by private jet to Kenya for the reception . The world has gone mad with the competition to see who can spend the most on a wedding.
I would agree that $1500-$2500 is a reasonable price & for less "let the buyer beware".
If the photographer does a bad job it would probably cost more to take them to court.



Canon 1DX, 1DIII, 5DIII, 24-70vII, 70-200vII, 300 f2.8 L IS, 500f4 L IS, 100 macro, 14mm Samyang.

[Erin]

Price does not equal quality.

Photographer skill equals quality.

My wedding photos are a prime example of how a $3000/six hours wedding photographer who has been in the industry for 20+ years can provide dodgy images. This is in comparison to the guy I paid $1500 to have for a whole weekend on the coast to shoot me in a "trash the dress" type of session. At the time he was very much a beginner and had only just started in the 18 months preceding that. His photographs are the images I pull out when showing people my "wedding" pictures. They are beautiful.

His prices now start at around the $3000 mark and he's been shipped all over the country and internationally to shoot weddings, such is the quality of the work he produces. He could charge a hell of a lot more if he wanted to and I'd pay him every cent.

My other wedding photos have not made it out of the box they came in more than twice and that was since 2008.

Definitely not disagreeing with other comments here but I quickly learned to look at it from a completely different perspective after my experience.

[JDFSandH]

We looked around the 2000 to 2500 mark for ours but settled at just over 3000 because we were picky. The photographer we loved had his price. We were happy to pay it. We travelled around the state a bit, interviewed heaps and just weren't happy with anyone else. But we are super picky with everything we do, not just our wedding. We had him for 10 hours. He shot me and the girls getting ready and my husband and the guys (both were on site at the venue but separate areas). Shot a private ceremony (we eloped at our own wedding), then the actual ceremony. Did bridal party shots. Then the entire reception. Finished with location shots. 2 shooters for the whole lot. We also did an engagement shoot which he used the photos from to make up an album that was used as the guest book at the wedding. What made him priceless on the day though, he took care of everything. Was on the phone the a lot, organising the cars when to pick us up, giving cues to the celebrant etc. Even climbing through the bushes to locate my husband when he lost track of time and forgot to turn up to the forst ceremony. We had 30 odd kids at the wedding which was entirely outdoors, and he kept them all interested in what he was doing when getting group pics.

Also, his photos are outstanding. We skimped on a lot of other stuff as the photos were a big deal for us. Still happy with our decision.
My husbands cousin did a budget wedding and paid $500 for a mate to photograph. They are always telling everyone else who gets married not to skimp on a photographer. They aren't happy with their pics at all.

[CapnBloodbeard]

I got married 3 years ago, and we spent about $1700 on the photographer.

For our money we got:

Photographer at the bride's house in the morning
Two photographers at the ceremony
Family photos etc
Location shoot between ceremony and reception
Photographer for full length of reception
'Crazy booth' at the reception
Engagement shoot several months before the wedding, before we'd even engaged the photographer for the wedding
DVDs of all hi-res images (including engagement shoot and crazy booth)
200 prints at 5x7 (we chose which shots we wanted printed)


We got about 1000 images in total, all of them edited and all of them great photos (some exceptional).

Needless to say, we were very happy with what we got. Maybe his prices have gone up now, I don't know, but I would certainly recommend Ben Adams to anyone: http://www.benadamsweddings.com/

Heh, he was one of the 'togs we interviewed when choosing our photographer, but I ultimately went with somebody else. His prices have gone up a fair bit since then....like, several times what you paid.

My wedding's coming up very soon....overall I wasn't overly happy with the engagement shoot, seemed to be below his usual standard, so I guess that makes me a bit nervous for the wedding photography now....

[nimrodisease]

Heh, he was one of the 'togs we interviewed when choosing our photographer, but I ultimately went with somebody else. His prices have gone up a fair bit since then....like, several times what you paid.
Interesting to know... I've been following his facebook page for a little while now and noticed that he's moved toward a more 'vintage' style - pushed contrast, but with no blacks and no whites kind of thing. Our wedding shots (and most of his portfolio back when we hired him) were a more traditional kind of high contrast, with plenty of blacks and whites.


My wedding's coming up very soon....overall I wasn't overly happy with the engagement shoot, seemed to be below his usual standard, so I guess that makes me a bit nervous for the wedding photography now....
That is a bit of a shame really.. it's always hard to know for sure - some people are very good at picking and choosing the shots they put in their portfolio. Hopefully he just had an off day though...

[CapnBloodbeard]

Interesting to know... I've been following his facebook page for a little while now and noticed that he's moved toward a more 'vintage' style - pushed contrast, but with no blacks and no whites kind of thing. Our wedding shots (and most of his portfolio back when we hired him) were a more traditional kind of high contrast, with plenty of blacks and whites.


Yeah, we avoided most photographers with that sort of style which seems a little trendy at the moment, but we still liked his enough to interview him.



That is a bit of a shame really.. it's always hard to know for sure - some people are very good at picking and choosing the shots they put in their portfolio. Hopefully he just had an off day though...

Oh, I'm well aware of that. That's why if a photographer wasn't able to supply a full day's worth of shots (eg blog page on their site) from several shots, then they'd be scratched off the list immediately. I'm not interested in a portfolio - whether somebody has managed to come up with 20 awesome shots over the last few years is completely meaningless.

My mum's photographer had a great portfolio, but was an utterly incompetent photographer.

[freelancer]

Wow Ive seen people turn pale when you mention $600, suppose thats the difference not living in the city.
Jon