market injustice

LuckyStudio 13

LuckyStudio 13

The Tapeless One
I was informed that many wedding photographers get paid way more money than wedding videographers.

The surprising thing is that, customers are more than willing to pay more money for their wedding pictures vs their wedding video. Customers also somehow think that making film/videos of their event is a far more less demanding effort than clicking away on the digital slr camera ! :violin:
 
Sad Max said:
Probably because every wedding guest with a camcorder figures they can do as good a job.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. A couple of years ago, it seemed like everybody I knew who picked up a $300 handycam thought they were make a ton of money as a videographer. Then they realized that they actually had to do more than point the camera at stuff to get good results. :shocked:
 
Sometimes people get a whole bunch of handycams and distribute them to wedding guests.

I imagine you could get some fun stuff that way, in a torrent of ick, but I'd sure hate to be the editor who has to put it together...
 
yeah the beastie boys did a dvd - "look I f'ing shot that" (or somethign like that) a while ago with cameras handed out to fans. Would be funny to look out from the front and see like 20 handycams pointed at you from the audience... you're the editing would be a ***** though.
 
I think it's a number of reasons.

One is the fact that, like David said, wedding videos are fairly new.
When the market first opened up the videos that were being produced were really nothing more than glorified home movies (and not even really that 'glorified').

Oversaturation is another issue - there are so many people willing to make a meager living off their gear in order to be able to do 'other' things that it's tough to charge much more than the average - especially when you've got guys out there doing entire videos for under a grand.

On top of that - you have to remember that professional photographer pricing was kind of 'grandfathered' in - it wasn't that long ago that in order to shoot professional quality prints you were shooting film - and most pros were shooting medium format. It's not a cheap medium to work in - throw in a second or third photographer to cover the even and your costs quickly go up. Of course now that many have made the move into digital it's not like they're going to slash their prices (nor should they).

But, I think we're seeing a lot of pressure in the photo market to lower the rates due to the lower cost of investment to get into it, and the oversaturation of photographers that's going to create - give it a few more years and we'll probably see a wider range of rates in the wedding video market as the quality of product continues to increase - and we'll probably see a similar drop in the price of photography services offered as more people opt for digital copies of their images as opposed to prints.
That's my guess anyhow.
 
As someone who photographs weddings, plus someone who is planning a wedding right now, I can tell you that photographers do not make more money than videographers.

The standard price for a photographer and a videographer is about $1500. My $1500 package gets me for 4-6 hours to shoot.

Why do I make more than the videographer? Because I charge for prints, digital negatives, post processing, and everything else. Prints are where photographers make their money. On top of that bridal portraits and engagement portraits are huge profit centers. It is just simply stated that when you are dealing with the number of images you shoot during a wedding that you can backload your expense to your package. For $1500 the couple is just getting me, no images delivered.

So it isn't unfair or not right. It is just a method of delivery issue coupled with how you market your product.

Take a wedding photography seminar and the key they tell you to increasing your market value to become a $5000/wedding shooter is through marketing your album.

That simple.
 
That's interesting Jeremy - I guess it depends on the market.

I know that here the average professional wedding video is probably around $1500 (the most expensive videographer I know of charging roughly $2500).
Whereas the average professional photographer is probably closer to $2500 for a basic package (the most expensive that I know of going up to around $7K).

So while the averages seem to be close - where I am at least it seems that photography has an established 'high end' market,
which videography has yet to really establish.
 
When I was negotiating with my wedding photographer (which was an awful experience) I essentially came up with a package that was:
6 hours of shooting
1 bridal portrait session
proof album
dvd of RAW files
dvd of post processed images in print ready TIFF files

We created this package for two reasons.
#1, I cannot do the bridal portrait because I am not allowed to see the dress. Right away, this adds $300 to my price.
#2: I am hiring the photographer for their overall vision and portfolio. To deny the photographer the opportunity to perform post production on the images is for me to say that I only want half the photographers skill to come through. I want all of her technique, therefore I am paying her to edit.

I wanted the RAW images so I can play, plus I wanted the TIFF files because I can print through my album printers without paying her 200% mark up. That being said, she is not GIVING me the RAW negatives... I am paying a MASSIVE premium, but it is what I want and ultimately it can save me money. I am also paying a high rate for her hourly editing but I think it is important for the photographers entire vision to come through rather than just a partial vision.

I can do my own printing though, but I am paying a lot of money to get the images to print.

All of that being said: when it comes to the videography, of course there is the editing but you deliver your DVD and then you're done. There aren't multiple prints or print examples. It is the same concept of an Ebook being cheaper to distribute than a physical book.

I am not implying at all that it is easier or harder to shoot or photograph a wedding, I am simply stating costs associated with delivery of the final product. I am saving money, but not really (hence why I gave the example).
 
That is a great idea Jeremy and the best part is your not stepping on anyones toes.

I hope I don't need a wedding photographer for the next 10 years.
 
David Jimerson said:
Sure. You can carry your photo album with you anywhere and show it to anyone. My wfie does.

You can't really hang a video on the wall, either. (Don't get snarky; you know what I mean.)
Click to expand...

Handheld video devices are now so readily available that I think the portability of the one is closing in on the portability of the other...
 
Wedding photography takes more talent, skill, and luck than wedding videography. I know because I've done both.

They deserve to be paid more.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
That's interesting Jeremy - I guess it depends on the market.

I know that here the average professional wedding video is probably around $1500 (the most expensive videographer I know of charging roughly $2500).
Whereas the average professional photographer is probably closer to $2500 for a basic package (the most expensive that I know of going up to around $7K).

So while the averages seem to be close - where I am at least it seems that photography has an established 'high end' market,
which videography has yet to really establish.
Click to expand...

Right, it absolutely depends on the market. Here in the North Bay (CA) the wedding photographers that I work with are charging anywhere from 3k to 5k. I won't say exactly how much my video packages are, but suffice it to say that video and photo have two very different pricepoints here. :) I think the average video package probably runs about $2500.

Honestly though, I don't have a problem with that. Wedding video has not matured to the point where it's as valuable an option as photography. I'll go ahead and make a broad sweeping statement and say that there are many more crappy self-styled wedding videographers turning out a subpar product than there are wedding photographers doing the same.
 
You don't even want to know how little i edit weddings for at the moment..

sigh... I hate... hate.. hate.. weddings...

but I am jaded I think...
 
Do you guys get the clients that want to blur the lines between photo and video? "Can't we just print stills from the tapes?" or "Could you just take still pictures after the ceremony?" It drives me crazy that people try to save money by twisting the two jobs together. I don't do weddings anymore, but if I did, I'd run from clients like that now.
 
Loki said:
You don't even want to know how little i edit weddings for at the moment..

sigh... I hate... hate.. hate.. weddings...

but I am jaded I think...
Click to expand...


It would be interesting to compare the rate-of-marriage among wedding videographers, with that of everybody else...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top