Any wedding photographers here? (1 Viewer)

[Jim Williams]

I am looking to get back to my first love, photography. I used to run my own studio and I specialized in portrait and commercial photography, but now I would like to do weddings. I would like to get back in mainly because I don't want to rely on somebody else for my paycheck and I have done a couple of weddings for friends and I really had a blast.

I do have some questions though. What kind of cameras do you use (format, not brand) and why?

If you use medium format exclusively, how many film backs do you have.

How much should I charge? (I live in a mid sized city of about 450,000 people)

How many exposures do you make?

Do you go to the rehearsal?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Jim Williams]

I am looking to get back to my first love, photography. I used to run my own studio and I specialized in portrait and commercial photography, but now I would like to do weddings. I would like to get back in mainly because I don't want to rely on somebody else for my paycheck and I have done a couple of weddings for friends and I really had a blast.

I do have some questions though. What kind of cameras do you use (format, not brand) and why?

If you use medium format exclusively, how many film backs do you have.

How much should I charge? (I live in a mid sized city of about 450,000 people)

How many exposures do you make?

Do you go to the rehearsal?

Thanks for the help.

 

[SethH]

I'm not a wedding photographer (nor a pro photographer at all), but I am getting married soon and recently went through the process of finding a photographer.

I specifically wanted a photographer who used medium format, but that's just me. The photographer we choose said he'd lost 1 or 2 couples because they would only accept someone who used only digital. I'm in southern VA, so prices should be fairly close I would think (you're in a bigger market, so maybe a little higher for you).

The cheapest packages were around $900 and included about 3-4 hours of time at one location (extra if reception is held else where). The "most popular" packages were around $1500-$2000 (these do not include bridal portrait). These included about 5-6 hours of time beginning about 2 hours before the wedding. Still include one location. Also includes about a 24 page album with various size pictures. The one we choose also includes an "engagement session." We will also likely get "parent's albums" which run about $400 for around (28) 5x5's or 5x7's and an 11x14. There may be a few other things included, but I don't remember right off.

I believe the highest priced package at each photographer included time at the rehearsal. These packages ranged from $6000-$12000 depending on photographer. Several local photographers have websites which have basic packages on them (but some keep their prices very confidential).

 

[SethH]

I'm not a wedding photographer (nor a pro photographer at all), but I am getting married soon and recently went through the process of finding a photographer.

I specifically wanted a photographer who used medium format, but that's just me. The photographer we choose said he'd lost 1 or 2 couples because they would only accept someone who used only digital. I'm in southern VA, so prices should be fairly close I would think (you're in a bigger market, so maybe a little higher for you).

The cheapest packages were around $900 and included about 3-4 hours of time at one location (extra if reception is held else where). The "most popular" packages were around $1500-$2000 (these do not include bridal portrait). These included about 5-6 hours of time beginning about 2 hours before the wedding. Still include one location. Also includes about a 24 page album with various size pictures. The one we choose also includes an "engagement session." We will also likely get "parent's albums" which run about $400 for around (28) 5x5's or 5x7's and an 11x14. There may be a few other things included, but I don't remember right off.

I believe the highest priced package at each photographer included time at the rehearsal. These packages ranged from $6000-$12000 depending on photographer. Several local photographers have websites which have basic packages on them (but some keep their prices very confidential).

 

[brentl]

I wish I was still doing this, I used to be cheap, because I offered a no frills type of thing. The photos were just as good and I usually put in unlimited hoursHey I'm working alread. I just didn't offer the sepia stuff or the bridal pre wedding stuff. I also let the bride put together the family albums herself.

I'd usually end up with around a $2000 total, and the bride was more than happy to have a party where the families got
photos they wanted and spent the evening putting them in the albums

Bronica Sq-a ---- medium format
standard 80mm lens, had a 150 but sold it a few years ago when I found I didn't use it much
I always used a 120 and 220 back, but always wished I'd have picked up another 220.

I usually shot about 160 shots, and tried to skip the party shots. Sure I got the cutting of the cake and the garter, but people almost NEVER buy those unless something really funny happened at the time

I'm not sure where medium formats sit in regard to digital, but if you compare a 6-7megapixel 35mm to a 2 1/4 negative blown up --- it's not even close!

Not too sure what's out for digital medium format. I'm sure it's REALLY expensive if there is anything.

Never go to the rehearsal, drop by the church and look around. Grob your light meter and take a coupla readings.

REALLY happy I don't do it anymore, it was never full time and I always felt the pressure. I'd never be a good public speaker with all the eyes that would be cast upon me. It's bad enough with a wedding party

 

[brentl]

I wish I was still doing this, I used to be cheap, because I offered a no frills type of thing. The photos were just as good and I usually put in unlimited hoursHey I'm working alread. I just didn't offer the sepia stuff or the bridal pre wedding stuff. I also let the bride put together the family albums herself.

I'd usually end up with around a $2000 total, and the bride was more than happy to have a party where the families got
photos they wanted and spent the evening putting them in the albums

Bronica Sq-a ---- medium format
standard 80mm lens, had a 150 but sold it a few years ago when I found I didn't use it much
I always used a 120 and 220 back, but always wished I'd have picked up another 220.

I usually shot about 160 shots, and tried to skip the party shots. Sure I got the cutting of the cake and the garter, but people almost NEVER buy those unless something really funny happened at the time

I'm not sure where medium formats sit in regard to digital, but if you compare a 6-7megapixel 35mm to a 2 1/4 negative blown up --- it's not even close!

Not too sure what's out for digital medium format. I'm sure it's REALLY expensive if there is anything.

Never go to the rehearsal, drop by the church and look around. Grob your light meter and take a coupla readings.

REALLY happy I don't do it anymore, it was never full time and I always felt the pressure. I'd never be a good public speaker with all the eyes that would be cast upon me. It's bad enough with a wedding party

 

[JohnRice]

Jim,

Did you start a thread asking about what sort of photography you may want to go back into?

I don't do weddings, but talk pretty regularly to some wedding photogs and more and more of them are switching entirely over to digital. Honestly, some people insist on film and some insist on digital and in most cases they are probably both wrong. Anymore, there is virtually no genuine reason not to shoot digitally (with a good D-SLR, that is) anything that would normally have been shot 35mm. If someone is touting they shoot film over digital and they are shooting 35mm, they are probably selling a bill of goods.

If I did weddings, I would be inclined to shoot the formal group shots MF, possibly the ceremony itself MF, but digital can have some real advantages in that area, and all reception stuff digital. The right tools for the situation is the main answer. People tend to get into the mindset that one is always better than the other, but that is rarely the case.

 

[brentl]

I agree with John, it's a great idea to shot the formal stuff with medium format and the informal shots with digital. Doing both gives you the quality of a medium format camera for the pictures that may get enlarged and a digital 35 for album type stuff.

Brent

 

[Darren Lewis]

Jim, I'm not a wedding photographer (or even a pro photographer) but I did just get married a couple of weeks ago!

When choosing our photographer we went for the person's style of photography rather than the equipment he used. We went for a journalistic approach with a mix of colour and B&W. A top quality album finish with some artistic arrangements was important to us. The guy's website is here.

The final album will have about 100 photos in it.

I believe he used a Nikon 35mm digital SLR for lots of the shots and a film medium format for the formal family shots.

The other thing that really impressed us on the day was how he took command of the group and was efficient, yet polite, at getting lots of excited people to stand for shots and throw confetti at the right moment! He also had an assitant to carry around most of the kit and to make sure people didn't blink or walk across the shots.

Hope that helps.

Darren.

 

[Jim Williams]

Thanks guys for your input. In addition to reading your posts I have been doing other research and I am looking forward to get started.