Why do people looking for photographers only pick photographers with fancy exspenive cameras or photographers with background shooting the said subject. Like for example, someone looking for wedding photos usually pick someone with background shooting weddings. Why? Isn’t someone who has experience doing portraitures who charges $2,000 less just as good? Why do people outside of photography think the camera is key? Isn’t skill the best?
Tags: into, people, Photography, professionals, questions
If you’ve never shot a wedding, you’d be seriously lost trying for the first time. Anyone who is seriously considering shooting weddings should go along with an established wedding photographer and watch what they do for a while before they try on their own. Then they will need to get extra equipment, in case something stops working. That costs more, you know. You can’t just stop a wedding because your camera doesn’t work. And you can’t just stop shooting, because the bride won’t be happy with only half the job done. Charge what you want! If you go bottom dollar, you’re saying that your work is not worth so much though.
Ok, but Teri – many wedding photographers had to start somewhere didn’t they? There was someone who had to hire them for their first wedding gig.
Edit: I really don’t think it’s fair for so many people to have given me a thumbs down. I agree whole heartily that to shot a wedding you need a lot of experience doing wedding photography, all I’m saying is that you have to start somewhere. Obviously building up your repertoire and experience beforehand, and having the equipment to make the most of your skills.
And Sakura – You are totally right, of course it would be best to assist wedding photographers. That would give you a name and reference to build up your portfolio.
But, to answer the question – people looking for photographers look for people with background knowledge and experience in the said subject because they want a guarantee of quality. A person who charges more knows that they can because they are good at what they do and guarantee good shots. And I think you are assuming or generalizing that people concern themselves with the type of equipment people are using to shoot. Because really, most people I know who have hired photographers base it on their portfolios.
Skill is something to consider of course but would you really want Bubba the Mechanic shooting YOUR wedding with a cheap point and shoot? Doubt it.
Weddings are a skill in and of themselves. They take a lot of time to learn to do properly and acquire the right gear. It’s not something you just do and can expect to be good at. Ever seen a pissed off bride? They’re scary, trust me. With weddings you have ONE shot to make it great. There are no do-overs. You have to be one hell of a photographer and have some damn good experience to work as a solo wedding photographer.
Photographers specialize in different areas. Where I may be top notch in portraits, another photographer is top notch in fashion photography and we each suck in the other’s respective area. You; as the consumer, want the highest quality images when searching for a photographer. You don’t want to shoot a family portrait with someone who specializes in landscape photography and knows little about shooting with people.
Skill in photography; as I have learned thus far, is skill in one or a few specialized areas, not necessarily all around. Those who have skills in more than a few areas are what I consider truly talented, gifted photographers.
I think it’s safe to assume you know little to nothing about photography otherwise you would understand without even asking.
Um.. What do YOU do for a living?
Why wouldn’t you want to hire someone with more experience? True, everyone has to start somewhere, but would that be the best choice for a wedding photographer? Unlike a portrait photographer who can take all the timein the world (within the subject’s tolerance range), at a wedding once the moment is gone, it’s gone forever. The portrait photographer might be great at setting up complex lights and reading a flash meter, but terrible at being in the right place at the right time during a wedding.
It’s true that the photographer makes more of a difference than the equipment, but let’s be honest. If you try to take a D40 (which I love) and the basic kit lens and shoot a wedding, you are going to be asking for more performance than your equipment can deliver. You need a fast lens for low light situations, decent resolution to allow for nice enlargements, a nice flash with attachments as required for various lighting conditions (if flash is allowed…), blah, blah, blah.
As we are learning here, there are weddings that ARE suited for beginning photographers with limited experience and basic equipment. It is nice when one of those beginners can match up with someone who can’t pay much for a photographer and they can accept that “something is better than nothing” when it comes to their wedding photos. I can guarantee you that there is not a working wedding photographer alive who isn’t wishing they had better equipment – especially the beginners.
I’d like to see his photos first.
The art of photography suffers from the plague that the latest is the greatest. The reason is that cameras are consumer electronics, and as such the myth that the most expensive or the last thing release is the best prevails over common sense.
Any photographer worth their salt is going to have a regularly updated portfolio of their best current work. All decisions should be based on that portfolio since the client is paying for results.
Someone that does great portraits isn’t necessarily going to be able to capture those special moments. Using the aforementioned mechanic reference, when my transmission tears up I take my truck to a transmission guy. Tires blow out? I go to a tire guy. Muffler work? You guessed it.
Now there are some general mechanics around that would probably do ok, but the extra money is worth it to go to someone that specializes in your need.
In the case of photography, a good portrait photographer could probably do ok on a wedding, but that is something that doesn’t happen again. Unless your like…Elizabeth Taylor, then you have a few chances to get it right…but most of the time it’s a one shot deal, and you want someone who does this day in and day out and has a solid portfolio to back it up.
It’s kind of like hiring a doctor… you wouldn’t want to hire a pediatrician to do an oncologist’s job. You want to hire someone who you know is skilled in that field… and if they specialize in it, then you know that they’re good at it.
You’re right… the camera isn’t the key, it’s the skill of the photographer.
** To Paradise: You’re right… everyone has to start someone… but if you’re smart, you’d start off assisting for a wedding photographer so you can learn exactly what to expect.
Pick your budget, and then you want to hire the person who will do the job for that price and has the most impressive portfolio. In this age of digital photography, gear alone does not a professional photographer make. There is an artistic eye that is required…and of course experience.
With photography, there is for the most part only so far your skills can take you with limited equipment. In order to achieve certain professional results you must have the proper gear. Lighting is the main part of this, and lighting gear is not cheap. Lighting is what makes most “pro” portraits look pro. Photographers sometimes have to charge what is considered an expensive fee because they have thousands and thousands of dollars worth of gear to pay for. And, not just any Joe with a new DSLR can replicate what an experienced photographer can do.
Photography is an art form that isn’t like painting or writing–skill is only part of the formula. Quality gear is equally important. Some photographers can produce impressive work with cheaper gear, but they still have more money invested than the average hobbyist.
I agree everyone must start somewhere. As a beginner professional photographer myself, I like people giving me a chance. But, in all fairness, a photographer with an expensive camera tricks the mind into thinking that person knows what they’re doing. And that maybe “wow, they have a big equiptment so that must mean they make lots of money to buy it.”
Another mind teaser is that when charging $2000 you’re thinking you’re bound to get your moneys worth.
Hiring someone with a background in doing certain shoots, is experienced to know what they’re doing and knows how do the job right.
Well, as far as experience… Look at it this way.. would you hire someone to completely remodel your house if they ONLY had experience in painting? Every job thats out there wants people with experience. Brides want everything to be perfect for their wedding day, and that includes the pictures… which means they want someone who is experienced in wedding photography. Just like painting is different from a complete home remodel, weddings are different from portraits.
How do you get experience? Find someone willing to do an internship or mentorship or the like with you. Find a photographer that will let you come along and learn from them.
As far as the camera…. To a point, the camera does matter. I wouldnt want my wedding shot with a 3megapixel point and shoot. I would want a higher resolution so that I could print larger pictures, and I would want the camera to have a good lens and manual controls.
Those “fancy expensive cameras” are often more reliable, can take more frames per second, allow for the option of interchangeable lenses, interact with professional quality flash units in a way that gives superior results, etc. I have a very nice Canon Powershot G10 – its a great little camera, but it is not appropriate for wedding photography as it is just not fast enough in its operation and anything shot at ISO = 200 or above is going to give inferior color results. Without an external flash unit as soon as the battery starts to wear down I might have to wait 10 – 20 seconds for the flash to recycle – an eternity if you are trying to get impatient people to hold still long enough for a portrait. You can take great pictures with almost any functioning camera if you use it within its limitations but for something like professional wedding photography you will need a more technically advanced camera just to do the job right. More money buys a more technically advanced camera but the skill to use it right has to come from the photographer. I will not do weddings – too much stress, and I am not outfitted for it. If you do decide to do weddings get everything in writing as to what you will and will not provide. Be sure that you know what you are doing or you could get sued for thousands as weddings are supposed to be a once in a lifetime event and if you don’t get it right you are up an infamous creek without a paddle.
Let’s turn the question around a little. Chris: why do you think people looking for nose jobs choose practitioners with a background in plastic surgery? Isn’t someone with experience in hip replacement just as good? Can you think of a single job, profession or area of expertise where a practitioner with extensive experience in that field should not be chosen over one with none? Especially if it’s a narrow, specialised field, where mistakes cannot be corrected after the event? No? Then why in the name of Ansel Adams should you think that photography should be any different? Get a grip, man. Use some common sense.
People will pick photographers based on their skill and experience of shooting the specific subject they want covered.
NO, someone who has never shot a wedding will not be “just as good” no matter what they have shot in the past.
There are specific skills required to do weddings just as there is for any other genre.
People outside of photography are clueless when it comes to equipment and the like and assume that a big expensive camera will mean good pictures (hence the ridiculous questions on here most of the time). Obviously skill is the main requirement.
Sure, you shoot portraits — so weddings should be a breeze right? Well, no. Not always. Shooting a single portrait session is more often a very controlled exercise. You sit your subject, evaluate the light and background, select your shooting parameters, pose, and shoot. Bottom line, you control most every aspect of a portrait shoot. Weddings on the other hand, much like any other event, are not always controllable by the photographer — in fact, the photographer usually has no say in what goes on and when. Since you have no control, you have to figure out where to be and when, in order to make your shot. You have to have some idea how the bride wishes for her day to be remembered, i.e., does she want a photo journalistic style, or a traditional style. How many in her party will show up, will anyone be late — do you have to wait for them? Where are you going to do your formals? What if the light in or around the church looks like crap? Will you set up lights? Where? Are you allowed? Doesn’t matter much though, because you still have to get the shot. I don’t think someone with only a rudimentary understanding of part of what goes into shooting events should assume that they can based on that person’s perceived skill level. Not because they have none, but because they assume they do because they know how to operate a camera. Anyone can operate a camera. And if you don’t know what gear you should have, then you should either learn, or don’t bother altogether. Because gear DOES matter in event photography. You know what the difference between an f/2 lens and an f/5.6 lens is? The difference is, not disturbing the event with your flash – and about $1,000. Your kit gear and rebel xti will work — sure. And if you charge $2,000 less than professional and credentialed photographers, that’ll work too I suppose. But don’t expect clients to beat down your door with work. Because the truth is, weddings are an multi-billion dollar industry. And if a bride is going to spend $40,000 to remember her day — you think she’s going to skimp on a $400 wedding photographer with no gear? Yeah…….no. The people who charge $4,000 and up do so because they’ve got a system that provides results, the very results that show in their portfolios. Don’t assume that because you’re not as experienced that people shouldn’t want someone who is. If you wish to aspire to be a wedding photographer — and it’s been mentioned already several times — work with one for about a year, or at least a couple of seasons (unpaid, of course), an learn. Then you won’t have to short change what you charge. Low balling your price with the competition won’t get you any work in weddings my friend. Better get it here than having to come to the realization that you may have made a mistake when it counts (i.e., on some poor bride’s wedding day).
To answer your question, yes. Skill is the best. But unless you’ve shot weddings before now, you have no skill in it — irregardless of your ability to shoot a portrait. In event photography, the camera IS the key — they don’t make $5,000 cameras for no one who needs one to buy them, you know. Can your camera autofocus (without assist) down to -1 EV and below? Will it shoot at least 5 frames a second? What is the highest ISO level without going into expansion modes? Is it at least 3200? Do you have any lenses faster than f/3.5? Do you have two of everything? If you’ve answered no to any of these questions, your camera is not good enough. What sucks is that there is a whole LOT of people who think that what they’ve got is good enough.
I’m not one of those people who believes anyone with a rebel or D60 and kit lenses can shoot weddings successfully, sorry. Sure, it may get your foot in the door, and perhaps maybe you’re satisfied with charging bottom dollar for your brand of wedding work, but you’re not giving your clientele what they should have with subpar gear and rudimentary knowledge – at any price point. This sort of mediocrity may be acceptable to you, but it is not to the people who take it seriously. People who look for wedding photographers with a background in such do so because they want that level of quality. Your questions are nonsensical, seriously. Because what you’re asking is essentially like asking why people buy a Lexus when a Hyundai will get them down the street. Isn’t the answer obvious? Have you ever driven a Lexus? You know what they say……If you have to ask why, you wouldn’t understand…
a wedding photographer being sued was in the news recently, so it floors me that this is even a question. i shoot decent night scenes of city skylines and i also shoot artwork for portfolios and i’m good at that. i’ve been asked to shoot a couple of weddings and i’ve run (not walked) in the other direction and i could use the money, but i’m not risking the very real possibility that everything could go south on me in such a situation because i lack experience with shooting weddings. and i go to alot of weddings, and i take many many pictures at weddings, but i also observe the wedding photographer (the guy or gal with more gear than i want to carry) and they are way busyier than i want to be at a wedding. they are working their butts off and then they got hours of post processing and editing ahead of them…they are NOT partaking of the goodies at the reception, they are NOT sharing the wine and joy, they are WORKING. protraiture is setting up each individual shot with the right lighting and taking some time…weddings is prety much doing things on the fly with available lighting because you don’t want to disturb the mood of some shots with flash.
Chris, I answered another question of yours yesterday about getting wedding clients. Obviously you believe that you have discovered a cash cow in shooting weddings in order to finance your new gear acquisitions. There is no question that skill trumps equipment, although you need the proper gear for the job. You haven’t the skill, either, at this point. Not saying you are not a good photographer, but weddings require their own skill set. Having never shot a wedding before, you lack the skill, as well as the equipment maybe.
If you knew much about weddings, (or people, for that matter) you would understand why brides would rather hire photographers who have some experience shooting them. It is a specialized skill, and there is only one chance to get it right. Weddings are often an emotionally charged time, a highly planned and organized event from beginning to end, and brides do not want anything left to chance. Plus everything has to be perfect. That does not mean a newbie wedding photographer couldn’t possibly do a good job. It does mean that potential clients want some other bride to be the guinea pig. Also they will expect a deal if the photographer does not have an extensive body of work to show. The $875 figure you are going after is way too much for a new photographer with no references and no portfolio. And maybe no equipment, although that is a different matter and a different question. What camera are you planning to use for wedding photography to start? I wouldn’t say a digital Leica would be ideal, either, and certainly not the Olympus as it has less than amazing high ISO performance. It is possible to shoot weddings with whatever equipment you have, but having the right stuff is better than making do.
If you are serious about wanting to learn wedding photography, begin at the beginning. The best way is to get with a local pro and assist or intern for a while. You might or might not get to shoot any pictures at first. Learn how the day should go, what is expected, how to handle people, what shots to get and how to plan for them.
If it is not possible to intern or find a mentor, then start by shooting for free, or at the most at cost. You can build a portfolio that way. If you have experience shooting portraits, offer a free bridal or engagement session.to get you started. That may lead to getting the wedding gig. After several weddings under your belt, you hopefully will have something to show your potential clients. Then you can charge whatever the market is for your area. In my rural area, $650 would get you an experienced 20+ year professional with a studio, all day coverage, and 20 8×10 prints. But you would have to purchase any additional prints and services from him, he does not release the files for several years. In bigger places, the rate will vary quite a bit. Overall $875 is probably at the lower end of most spectrums, but still into the professional territory. Any bride who pays that much is going to expect better than snapshots coverage, and rightfully so.
Be aware, shooting weddings is not easy work. You won’t last if your heart and skills are not there. Shooting because you want to make money to buy new stuff doesn’t sound too encouraging to me. YMMV.
sure hire a plumber (someone that owns a spanner) to fix your car and see what the results are like