Weddings are expensive” is a pretty popular topic for articles on the
internet, and now Consumer Reports is getting in on the action by
“revealing” that wedding photography costs more than other kinds of
photography. The premise of the article lies heavily on the fact that
it’s simply a markup that gets applied as soon as the word “wedding” is
uttered, but there’s more to it than that when it comes to photography,
so let’s clear a few things up.
The first, and most obvious point to be made is that wedding
photography is different than other types of photography. In the study,
Consumer Reports queried several vendors with two different scenarios.
Here’s the example from the article: “Some photographers inflated their
pricing when the affair was a wedding. For instance, photography for a
Saturday night wedding in mid-October cost $300 per hour at
[photographer's name removed]. For a 50th anniversary party of the same
size at the same time with an almost identical package of services,
though, the charge was $150 per hour.”
It may seem fair to compare the two events because, hey, they’re
happening on the same night and they last the same number of hours. But,
the two are very different animals.
Weddings require work that happens before the big day, including
scouting and helping the couple to plan the festivities to maximize time
usage (something briefly mentioned in the article). Weddings typically
require lots of gear to cover every aspect of an event, including formal
portraits. Weddings have schedules that change on a dime, and tons of
other logistics to figure out. And most importantly, weddings often
require more people on the team to make everything happen. I like to
work with a second shooter and sometimes even an assistant or two for
weddings. And all of this often happens across several venues. And let’s
not even get into the type of editing that wedding photos require.
An
anniversary party, however, is typically much simpler. I can show up
with a single camera and a couple flashes and make the whole thing work
for basic formals and lots of great coverage. I certainly might bring an
assistant, but wouldn’t likely need a second shooter unless a specific
request called for it. And the editing is all pretty straight forward
since it’s basically just one long wedding reception. This isn't the
case for all photographers, but it's also probably not information
that's readily offered to random clients unless they specifically ask.
That’s not to say that there isn’t some wiggle room for people who
want a great photographer but can’t afford the best possible packages.
It can’t hurt to ask if there are any options for making things more
affordable, unless the client is slinging offensive low-balls.
Don’t get me wrong, there is likely at least a little bit of a markup
on wedding photography as a whole. But, even if you can’t link that
markup to a specific line item on the invoice, it’s still worth
considering that developing wedding photography skills is a very long
and specialized process. Wedding photography is also typically more
stressful than other types of photography, even if it is really, really
fun.
You wouldn't fault a mechanic for charging more to work on a Ferrari
than on a cheap family sedan. The stakes are higher and the skills more
specialized.
Ultimately, I think it’s unfair to imply that every photographer is
simply trying to screw people as soon as they find out they’re in the
market for a wedding. And anyone who gets the bright idea to try and
book a photographer for a “party” that’s actually a wedding in order to
save a few bucks should certainly reconsider.
No comments:
Post a Comment