[dewy]

Came across this site (was shown on my google ad) and I tohught I might check it out to see what people are charging, and I found his prices page here and I am like, theif.
In other words I tihnk he is over charging, what are your ideas on fair charging, does this come under fair for you? obviously there are some people or he would not be in business.

[shuttertalk]

Wow, they better be good! I think my wedding coverage was about 2600 and he was shooting all medium format (hassblad mmm.... ), with coverage from 8.30am right through till 12pm. But then again, I was on a budget. In Aus, wedding photography can range from under a grand up to 10K if you want to splurge.

A side note I hate photographers who limit themselves to x number of rolls as well - makes me think they're too cost conscious, and they might hold back and miss an important moment because they were "conserving film"

[StudioJ]

I posted before but it didn't work, computers mustn't like me this weekend but I'm pretty tired tonight. In local news it looks like Liberal got in by quite a good margin, its 10:30pm now and my partner isn't home yet, she works for the electoral commission so a big weekend for them.

Ok on weddings, I don't like his site overly, the front menu is kinda cute though but I think it would be better as an image map. Prices are about normal though, bit pricy for the half day coverage unless he is busy enough that he could be booking a full day wedding in that same time and would lose out financially by only taking a half day. I worked as an unpaid (aside from accommodation and expenses) for a big wedding in South Australia for the daughter of a banker who was marrying a 5th generation navy officer and that one was around the $45,000 mark.

I've talked to decent wedding photographers who use 35mm and their average cost on film is around $300 with double that if they use medium format. It can be costly process to some extent. And his print package with each is fairly nice too.

[Petographer]

The prices are somewhat pricey but I don't think it's out of the norm. This guy is charging high but there is a saying about price high or don't price at all. When you price low then some people figure that's the quality they'll get. Obviously these are the prices of a seasoned pro. His photos will have to speak for themselves. I also noticed that he is including the negatives.

[Soundy]

The main thing I notices is that he's providing the negatives, which means he's potentially giving up any future income from making reprints and probably releasing all rights as well, which prevents him using them for his own advertising without the clients' permission (and probably paying them for that usage). I'd expect some DAMN GOOD photos for that price, but it's not overly expensive.

[dewy]

I posted before but it didn't work, computers mustn't like me this weekend but I'm pretty tired tonight. In local news it looks like Liberal got in by quite a good margin, its 10:30pm now and my partner isn't home yet, she works for the electoral commission so a big weekend for them.

My mum was working for the Electoral commishin too, shegot home at 11.30pm =) Our local sitting member got voted back in.

Any one think me, with my current skills, should charge $100 for coverage of a weding, or do it free just for skill building and getting my name out?

[Toad]

I think that giving the negatives away is bad business - and not only because of the loss of reprint revenue (which can be the most profitable part of the job).

When you give away the negatives, you allow the customer to choose which photos they will enlarge and display. Every photographer that I know has some poor to marginal shots on every role, and a customer for reasons of their own, may choose that photo to distribute.

At that point, the marginal photo becomes the example of your work that everybody sees - and that represents you to the public.

I prefer to pre-edit the photos that are given to my customers - first rule: if you want to convince people that you are a good photographer, don't show your bad shots.

[shuttertalk]

I think that giving the negatives away is bad business - and not only because of the loss of reprint revenue (which can be the most profitable part of the job)..

That's probably true... Although we got the negatives with our wedding pics and I haven't gotten round (or had the need to) reprint any yet. Although having medium format negatives may have something to do with that...