wedding photography album

[dbaplaya]

what would people expect these days for a wedding album? my friend paid a wedding photograher £400 to take the snaps on the day and an extra £130 to have 30 pictures in an album. When the album arrived with their chosen prints in they were printed off a home HP type printer and stuck into a WH smith type album.
He said it's not good enough but for the money i said what do you expect. the prints dont look too bad quality and are on decent photo paper.

any wedding photograhers out there that can shed any light on pricing within the industry and if he has any reason for complaint.

 

[Mickymoody]

Decent pictures taken on an an SLR camera, treated correctly, should make the grade, but some bloke with a digital camera, printing them out on his home computer, frankly, doesn't make the grade..

 

[opps]

depending on the size of the images I would expect dye sub rather than inkjet- afterall do you want images that smudge or fade?

 

[joe-90]

Didn't he ask for samples of previous work?

 

[wreckedit]

Didn't your friend get what he asked for?

He should have done more research before accepting the contract.
If he had seen an acceptable sample of the guys work from the guy himself then he may have a valued complaint.
A lot of professionals use digital cameras. So, cannot see that being an issue.

However, my sympathies are with your friend, it must have been a big disappointment for such a special day.

 

[joe-90]

Just get the original images off him and get some printed up.

 

[dbaplaya]

He did have the original disc off the guy, about 800 images. They were taken with a Canon 450D, so the quality is of a decent quality. I still thought it was a pretty cheap deal £400 odd quid for that. I know of other friends that have paid a lot lot more.

 

[joe-90]

£400 for an hours clicking - and you think it's a bargain?

 

[dbaplaya]

£400 for 1Pm - 8Pm. i think thats cheap + an album with 30 prints in.

 

[skitzee2k]

£400 for 1Pm - 8Pm. i think thats cheap + an album with 30 prints in.

..so £400 for 7 hours work, which if you add up all the time he was actually working, probably 2 hours, is a lot per hour...or for 80 pics, £5 a pic... and then £130 for another couple of hours work(or £4.50 per print out).

Considering that he probably got fed and watered...that is an outrageous price.

 

[Ossy]

As far as wedding photography is concerned that seems like not a bad price, but I'd have expected them to have been printed professionally. If the prints/originals are good then count yourself lucky - I've seen some shockers for the same money and spent hours trying to rescue something from a bad batch.

If he's running this (semi) professionally then he would have to factor in time in preparation maybe including a recce of the church/registry and reception location, travelling time and costs. Yes, he may only be 'clicking' for a proportion of the time but he has to be there and hanging waiting for all the crucial points (cake cutting, bouquet, first dance, candids throughout etc.) so I'd consider that all working. How does he pay for his camera equipment (probably ~£1-1.5k for camera, lenses, flash and batteries/card) and keeping it up to date? Next go home and there's the editing software that cost £x then going through and processing 800 images I'd put on at least 7 hours if he's particularly quick. Get printed and put it all together then deliver.

Not exactly a couple of hours clicking snaps then bob's your uncle! Unless you've tried doing wedding photography you haven't really got an idea of how hard and especially stressful the day itself can be. I'd never offer it as a service, but have done it for friends informally and paid in beer - that's cheap!

 

[snico]

£530 for the photos and the album is pretty cheap for a wedding photographer, although I have not seen the actual prints. There is a lot more to it than just taking the pictures. I have been to weddings where the photographer has cost a lot more, some cases up to 1K. They dont come cheap.

 

[joe-90]

It's not cheap it's outrageous. You can employ a doctor for less.

 

[skitzee2k]

The point is once you have done one wedding you pretty much copy all the poses.. no-one is worth that. The equipment argument doesn't hold water either. Can I charge thousands for a job to cover the cost of my van? Or am I expected to spread that over years rather than 2 or 3 jobs?

 

[snico]

It's not cheap it's outrageous. You can employ a doctor for less.

Why would you want a doctor at your wedding though