Photogs stepping into the videog's turf?

[Travis Cossel]

Here's the deal (my wife's a photographer so I can understand the situation).

Wedding photography tends to be a very low profit margin business model (much like video). This is why most photographers prefer to shoot families and seniors over weddings.

Photographers really need to make print sales usually to make shooting a wedding worthwhile. Couples, on the other hand, are always looking for ways to get their hands on the images while paying a little as possible. So, if they know the videographer is going to dump 15-20 of their favorite shots into the video, it could conceivably create less demand for prints of any of those images.

You also have the issue of how the photographs will be represented in the video. A bad videography can shed a bad light on great photography.

These are some of the issues I could see a photographer having.

[Jeff Harper]

Good explanation Travis, makes sense. I can see if it would affect sales for a photographer how they would resist. Perfectly understandable.

If that is the reason my friend has for not providing photos it would have been nice had he explained. I never pressed him, I just wondered what the deal was, he just seemed to go silent when I brought it up a during a couple of shoots.

On the other hand the photographers who give CDs for their customers to print themselves are the ones who don't seem to mind, so it is all starting to make sense.

It seems the younger photogs are of the latter group and the veterans fall into the former group. The veterans sometimes offer a CD to customers, but only at an added cost. The "new school" photographers seem to just give the CDs as part of the deal.

Your post has really cleared this up for me Travis, thanks!

[Bruce Patterson]

After having worked with the 5DMKII before Christmas (Nov/Dec), I must say that with the right lens/lenses it is truly a PHENOMENAL tool. There are limitations that I'll expand on in the new year, but also workarounds. We're ABSOLUTELY incorporating them into our '09 workflow.

And in case you missed it: www.fusionisnow.smugmug.com

Some was shot with an EX1 since Canon only sent one 5D but it's possible to mix the footage quite well, IMO.

[Dana Salsbury]

It's important to see the two philosophies. If a photographer doesn't want to give away his print revenue, I totally understand, which is why I really don't care if he sends me photos to use, and would still refer people to him based on his personality and portfolio.

[Joe Allen Rosenberger]

Wedding photography tends to be a very low profit margin business model (much like video). This is why most photographers prefer to shoot families and seniors over weddings.

Photographers really need to make print sales usually to make shooting a wedding worthwhile. Couples, on the other hand, are always looking for ways to get their hands on the images while paying a little as possible. So, if they know the videographer is going to dump 15-20 of their favorite shots into the video, it could conceivably create less demand for prints of any of those images.

You also have the issue of how the photographs will be represented in the video. A bad videography can shed a bad light on great photography.

These are some of the issues I could see a photographer having.[/QUOTE]



Travis- this might be true in other parts of the US but certainly not in Southern California..."most" of the photographers I am in a network with start at around $4,500.00 for a base price package and that basically covers 2 shooters for the day...no book included at that price.
The profit margin between video and photos out here is much higher for the photographers.

On another note, since your wife is a photographer...do you two work together a lot and does she often work with other videographers?

[Jeff Harper]

Regarding profit margin, that seems to be another good point, different take on things, Joe. Most photographers I work with start at 2.5K and they seem to average about $3-4K.

I have no idea how much time they spend processing photos before delivery, but I know the last 3cam wedding I did had over 1200 cuts. Additionally there was: time spent on film effects, color tweaking, processing, selecting and cropping of photos, creating custom backgrounds for photos, etc.

I charged under 2K for the whole deal. While it is possible the photographer had as much time and effort in their package, I doubt it. In this case their price was close to 5K.

So they received over double what I did for what likely was less effort. I don't know that, but I would suspect it. Please keep in mind I don't really care, I'm just kicking this around since it was brought up.

In the end, it doesn't matter. It varies from shop to shop, and if photographers are making more per dollar spent than I, it is irrelevent to my business anyway. Video is not seen as essential by the vast majority of b&gs, and this is just the way it is.

Anyway that camera really is intriquing...I can't see it as my first still camera...no justification since I already have video...but what a cool toy.

[Peter Szilveszter]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

Here's the deal (my wife's a photographer so I can understand the situation).

Wedding photography tends to be a very low profit margin business model

Interesting very different in your area, here in Oz how photogs charging $4g's for 8 hours with a 10 page album and digital proofs only, how is that low profit margin? Only if I could charge the same right now for video; 8 hour shoot, a 3-4min highlight with a printed case/dvd and that's it, people would laugh in my face....that's where the industry is at here.

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Joe Allen Rosenberger

Travis- this might be true in other parts of the US but certainly not in Southern California..."most" of the photographers I am in a network with start at around $4,500.00 for a base price package and that basically covers 2 shooters for the day...no book included at that price.
The profit margin between video and photos out here is much higher for the photographers.

On another note, since your wife is a photographer...do you two work together a lot and does she often work with other videographers?

Yeah, no one is charging even close to that much here and not offering a book. Different markets I guess.

To answer your question, about 75-80% of the weddings my wife shoots, I'm there. And for those when I'm not there, another videographer is present maybe 5% of the time or less. Very rare. When they are booking with us, if they don't book me they usually have no plans to book a videographer.

[Travis Cossel]

I think some of the rest of you missed my point. I wasn't saying that photography has a similar profit margin (number-wise) to videography. I'm saying that for a photographer, there is much more profit to be made in portraits than in weddings.

As my wife is a photographer I can tell you that my projects take MUCH more time to complete. That said, my wife spends MUCH more time working on images and albums than most other photographers. She's a perfectionist like me. But yes, I would say that videographers probably spend more time on a wedding project than photographers on average.

However, videographers have very low hard costs associated with each project. Photographers have to pay for prints and albums and so on. So while a photographer might be making $2k more than you, and work less hours, they are also spending $1k on prints and an album (or more).

So again, my point was that weddings are typically a low-profit-margin avenue for both photographers and videographers. Videographers have it worse on average, and photographers have better profit opportunities with portrait work. Those were my points.

[Jeff Harper]

Thanks for the explanation Travis. As you say, to put it in another way, few of us has it as easy or as great as it may appear on the surface!

[Joe Allen Rosenberger]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

I think some of the rest of you missed my point. I wasn't saying that photography has a similar profit margin (number-wise) to videography. I'm saying that for a photographer, there is much more profit to be made in portraits than in weddings.

As my wife is a photographer I can tell you that my projects take MUCH more time to complete. That said, my wife spends MUCH more time working on images and albums than most other photographers. She's a perfectionist like me. But yes, I would say that videographers probably spend more time on a wedding project than photographers on average.

However, videographers have very low hard costs associated with each project. Photographers have to pay for prints and albums and so on. So while a photographer might be making $2k more than you, and work less hours, they are also spending $1k on prints and an album (or more).

So again, my point was that weddings are typically a low-profit-margin avenue for both photographers and videographers. Videographers have it worse on average, and photographers have better profit opportunities with portrait work. Those were my points.

Huh....photographers are NOT paying for books out of their own pockets(profit), clients are charged for them....and charged more than the cost of one course.

[Peter Szilveszter]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

I think some of the rest of you missed my point. I wasn't saying that photography has a similar profit margin (number-wise) to videography. I'm saying that for a photographer, there is much more profit to be made in portraits than in weddings.

Yeah, I like to do other things then weddings because trying to live of wedding videos is pretty hard to do unless you can have heaps of bookings and no time for anything else (life?) We are offering a service that is totally professional to clients that don't have any clue of the value, unlike most other video productions, even corporate there is a sense of value for the product.

Anyway this discussion was about photogs stepping on our turf. I say good luck to 'em. If the photographer has business sense then working together with videoprahpers would only help the industry and their own business.

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Joe Allen Rosenberger

Huh....photographers are NOT paying for books out of their own pockets(profit), clients are charged for them....and charged more than the cost of one course.

My point was that it's easy for a videographer to look at a photographer's package that is $3k or $4k and forget that prints and album expenses are coming out of that package cost. Now I understand that there are some photographers charging $4k and that doesn't include an album or any prints, but that is NOT your average photographer.

As for photogs offering video, I still think some will do it but not to the extent that most of us are doing it. It won't be worth their time. However, my opinion is that photogs offering video "options" can only help the video industry. Why? Well, because every bride wants a photographer, right? And if they start seeing photogs offering video services, then it automatically gets them thinking more seriously about video. So to me it's ironic that the new 5D could actually end up helping the video industry more than the photo industry.

[Tim Harjo]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

As for photogs offering video, I still think some will do it but not to the extent that most of us are doing it. It won't be worth their time. However, my opinion is that photogs offering video "options" can only help the video industry. Why? Well, because every bride wants a photographer, right? And if they start seeing photogs offering video services, then it automatically gets them thinking more seriously about video. So to me it's ironic that the new 5D could actually end up helping the video industry more than the photo industry.

The only problem with that is if they have already booked a photo / video package through a photog. If they get sold on a video package from a photographer, then they won't go looking for a videographer. And that's a shame if the a photog is going to do a crappy job just to get another $500 bucks. I'm not talking about the fully staffed studios that does it right, I'm talking about a photographer that brings along one assistant and says 'sure, for another $500, I'll shoot some video too and call it a wedding video package. Hopefully no one out there would really do that and represent it as a complete photo and video package.

[Joe Allen Rosenberger]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

My point was that it's easy for a videographer to look at a photographer's package that is $3k or $4k and forget that prints and album expenses are coming out of that package cost. Now I understand that there are some photographers charging $4k and that doesn't include an album or any prints, but that is NOT your average photographer.

As for photogs offering video, I still think some will do it but not to the extent that most of us are doing it. It won't be worth their time. However, my opinion is that photogs offering video "options" can only help the video industry. Why? Well, because every bride wants a photographer, right? And if they start seeing photogs offering video services, then it automatically gets them thinking more seriously about video. So to me it's ironic that the new 5D could actually end up helping the video industry more than the photo industry.

Travis, your comments should probably be directed for "your" market in Boise Idaho...and not in general( I can understand your points for your market but not for the region I am in). Boise Idaho and Southern California are two WAY different markets and 4K for a photographer is close to an average out here, and that is not for the upper high end market either.

"Most" photographers do not like working with videographers...and often for good and legitimate reasons.

Good wedding videography(shot and edited by whoever) helps wedding videographers.....but the mass amount of bad ones out there will continue to reinforce brides why they shouldn't have a wedding video....and also why they shouldn't pay a lot for it.