Direct copy and paste from the enquiry email:
----------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Just after some information please.

Groom is getting ready in Drummoyne
Bride is getting ready in Stanmore

The Ceremony is at St Marks church in Darling Point at 2pm

Photos will be down at the quay about 5 mins away and maybe the Lighthouse or Circular Quay

Reception will be in the Museum of Contemporary Art.

We would like to know what sort of long version we recieve as well as the type of highlight video you make.

Can you please let me know what we can get as our budget is quite small between 2000 and 3500 for video and 5000 to 6500 for photos

We are also looking for photographers so if you know of any please feel free to offer your recommendations.

We are not in Sydney at this time due to work commitments, but we will be going over all the info we recieve and make appointments to meet upon our return in March

Thank you for your time

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok have to say that his budget is quiet decent for videography... its not like really low or anything... but what sort of disappointed me was the fact that he budgeted twice as much for photography. the question is why?

why wouldn't he budgeted $6000 for videography? the answer is probably because he never heard of a videographer charging that much of money. or maybe he just thinks that videography is worth half of what photography is worth..

what do you guys think? does this email sound irritating or its just me?

Santo

There is a solution:

get together with some photog, and then split the money in half :-) Then $5k each sounds great !!! Couple doesn't have to know about it.

Plus of course the 10% commision to Lukas for the idea ;)

Hi Susanto, photographers do charge more because there's a lot of hard cost involve. With the 5k budget, you have to consider the cost of a Coffee Book Style Album, cost of the Digital Lay-out Artist, how many prints do the couple want aside from the main album, Engagement Photo Shoot, Portrait with signature Mat, Thank You cards, Printing Cost ( I assume they don't go to walmart for ther pirnts) the 5K would easily be down to 3K.

my 2 cents and opinion.

Maybe they're expecting to get some big fancy handmade gilded frames. :)

Photos have always taken precedence over video.

What we are finding state side is, brides want an all in one solution.

Find a good photographer and develop a package where you both win.

Sadly some of the answers we received from brides are their concern for the ever changing video technology.. Photographs are easily accessible even in 20 years while video format and media changes every so often..(betamax)

Susanto, I understand your frustration. The simple answer here is that photography has been around much much longer.

Because of this it is a top priority for brides. You just don't hear about weddings without a photographer. Photography also has a higher established value because of this.

Hard costs ARE a factor, but more in the justification of what a photographer is charging and less a factor in how that relates to video. As a fusion studio, we're quite aware of both sides of this issue. One of of our top goals right now is to constantly increase our profit on the video side. From our experience, the extra time and expertise required to produce an amazing video easily balances with the hard costs required to produce an outstanding album.

So basically, we all just need to be constantly increasing the quality of our work, and increasing our prices accordingly. I believe that the tide is slowly changing as our work as an industry has been improving and the generations of today are growing up with more dynamic media content. I think in another 10-15 years the video element could easily be as important or more important as photography to the average bride. Granted, none of us want to wait that long, but maybe it will happen sooner ...

Sadly some of the answers we received from brides are their concern for the ever changing video technology.. Photographs are easily accessible even in 20 years while video format and media changes every so often..(betamax)

These would be the same folks that really appreciate the thoughtful addition of a "cupholder" on their computer?? i.e. the CD/DVD tray...

DVD is likely to be accessable longer than most marriages last nowdays, even BR is backward compatible. OK, so VHS might have gone into the dustbin (I'm aware SOME peopel still use it... don't shoot me), but how long was that a valid and viable format?? And one can transfer VHS to DVD presuming the tape hasn't degraded. Plus, once a file is in digital format... geez.

Oh, and anyone notice that photographers are using DIGITAL files, some of which are in formats that may be difficult to read (some RAW)??

I guess editing isn't a cost then?

I think a lot of this comes from the days when the photographers used film and had to develop and print it themselves.

Thanks for the replies guys.

Regarding hard costs.. I agree with Travis where our editing time easily balance with the hard cost of producing an album (which I know doesn't cost a bomb since I work with a photography studio before and know about their album costs)

I think The only post-production benefit that videography has over photography is that clients are less particular with video compared to photography. I've seen couples going back and forth with their album for ages but not with videography.

I think I'm frustated because I really really want couples to understand how videography is not something that they get just for the sake of having one. I've done meetings with couples who are ony interested in seeing how much dollars they are spending.. and also with clients who don't care about the price, they just like what they see.

i know you guys might say ("grow up dude! stop whining! thats what it is!")

lol

maybe everyone here can give one 10 sec footage of their best work and we can make a showcase where we show how wedding videography has changed over the years in every part of the world?

it will be one of the hardest thing to choose that 10 sec footage though lol

Santo

It's the disparity in equipment investments between video and photo that tear me up.

The videographer shows up with:

2 cams 8K
wireless 2K
2 tripods 2K
lights 2K
digital recorder & mics 2K

16K of venue equipment

Then goes to the shop to put serious work on the workstation, hard drives and printer dealing with 50 GB of data.

The photographer shows up with:

2 cameras 4k
3 lens 4K
lights 2k
misc 1K

11K of venue equipment

Then goes to the shop to put light work on the workstation, hard drives and printer dealing with 5 GB of data.

There is definately a problem with a wedding videography model that works this way.

The 'problem' is twofold.

The vast majority of wedding video work is still not crossing the artistic boundary, and quality is also lacking. Our industry has made great strides in the past decade, especially in the past 5 years, but there's no denying that the majority of what is offered/provided out there is still representative of that 'wedding video' stigma. Until more of us up our game and provide a better product, the undervaluing of video will remain.

The other issue is that most of us are undercharging for what we do. We may have improved our product/service, but we're still not really charge what it is worth. So if I'm producing a product at '5 star quality' and I charge $4k, but a competitor is offering a very similar product for only $2k ... where are the brides going to go?

As an industry we really need to raise up the quality of everyone around us AND get them to adjust their prices accordingly.

Travis:

+1

Truer words couldn't have been spoken.

There is huge value in capturing weddings on video, and as a part of these changing times, we have to market the value better. There is a lot of "not so good" wedding videos that hurt us. There are also a growing number of wedding videos that help. I'd like to be on the side that helps it.

:)

antz

I am not sure what photographer you are using to base this on, but 11K is way too low for most pros. I am a photographer looking to expand into digital, and here is what I am packing for this weekend's wedding.

D3 5K
D300 - 1500
Leica M8.2 5K

Lenses -
14-24 - 1500
24-70 -1500
70-200 1500

Leica
21/2.8 - 2000
35/2 -1500

Two flashes - 1000

I have three more bodies and about 6 more lenses that would take this $20,000 for a simple kit to $40,000 for a more complex kit/shoot.

But I agree with your premise - I have been pricing video (not for wedding but for corporate work) and seeing the expense of the gear vs the rates, I don't know how anyone makes it in the video world.

It's the disparity in equipment investments between video and photo that tear me up.

The videographer shows up with:

2 cams 8K
wireless 2K
2 tripods 2K
lights 2K
digital recorder & mics 2K

16K of venue equipment

Then goes to the shop to put serious work on the workstation, hard drives and printer dealing with 50 GB of data.

The photographer shows up with:

2 cameras 4k
3 lens 4K
lights 2k
misc 1K

11K of venue equipment

Then goes to the shop to put light work on the workstation, hard drives and printer dealing with 5 GB of data.

There is definately a problem with a wedding videography model that works this way.

I am not sure what photographer you are using to base this on, but 11K is way too low for most pros.

roughly 40% of photographers I meet on the jobs, shoot with 1 camera and 2 lenses (24-70mm; 70-200mm)
I'd say only 40% of them have full frame camera,
about 20% use only on camera speedlight
so based on my experience, majority of photographers I work with, are not even close to $11K;
I use equipment in total over $30K and still get paid less than a guy with $2K camera and couple of lenses,
Travis is right, wedding photography as a service started more than 100 years before wedding video, and a stereotype is that photo is a 'must' and video is 'nice to have' on the wedding day;
but lately things are started to change, there are some studios, we're all know the names, that can offer a wedding video with the professional quality close to a good motion picture, and they sell the service accordingly;
so I guess I'm not that good yet,
but some day I'll be there:)
Best

Have you ever thought what it would cost to pay someone to design a dvd box cover and the disc art work? What would it cost to pay a professional sound man to capture audio at a wedding? Ever had to hire a camera op that can do tripod work AND glidecam/slider stuff and what that would cost (w/ or w/o gear)? How much would it cost per hour to hire an editor to edit a 15-40minute video plus a highlights, etc...? On top of the job duties, how much money do you have dumped into your camera/support gear, audio gear, editing station, dvd authoring and design stuff? How much would Hollywood charge for all of this?

If you think about it, a wedding videographer wears more hats than one or two people really should and you should price for it. I agree that the "old" style is what people are used to seeing and may not think that it's artistic like photography, but they still have all of these job duties. So, if the "old" style guys raise their prices, that means the "cinematic" style guys can raise their prices as well. Yay for everyone! We control the market, not the brides.

Ever broke down how much money you make per hour? I have, and I'm not too proud of it. On some projects I would be better off at McDonalds.

Everyone has made really good points, so lets keep hearing them!

I too have figured out my per hour rate and I too am not proud of it.

I understand that that your average Joe doesn't realize what goes into what we do, but it kills me when people complain about price when they would not work for the same amount.

I mean, if someone makes $20/hr doing something like, for example, construction, and are then asked to work for minimum wage, they wouldn't stand for it. Yet I have had people come into my home and ask for rates that would put me at less than minimum wage.

Just to ramble a bit, I like Mike's equipment list because it accurately represents what it takes to do photography right. The killer though is that a small percentage of wedding photographers put that kind of money into their equipment. With so many amateur photographers shooting weddings, there are a lot of photographers that don't even have a second body and no more than a couple of lenses. I still go to weddings where the photographer shows up with a D70. Though to be fair those are typically the ones charging $500 and not including albums.

It's definitely very important to track your $/hour, but also be aware that couples don't care about that. They only care about how much THEY are paying and what THEY are getting. So the trick really, is to figure out ways to satisfy their needs in those areas while at the same time increasing your $/hour. Not an easy thing, but definitely doable.

Santo,

Yes, this erks me too when the budget for photos is double than for video. I was speaking to Troy while he was staying with us and the most imprtant thing that we have come up with (& far from an original idea) is that with video, upselling after the fact is almost impossible.

What can we upsell? more DVD copies, more hours, Blu-ray, perhaps movie posters???

Something I've come to realise is that this upselling needs to often occur at the point of booking, or it doesn't happen. I rarely get people going up a scale to a higher package and still, it'll be cheaper than the photographer.

What can we do about it??? We'll chat at dinner time :)

I dunno, but I can't count the number of calls I've had from couples I shot that said had they known how awesome the video was they would have spent more on video and less on photography. It's a common theme when they get the final product. They saw the demos, they saw the cover art and DVDs.. but still didn't realize how much they liked the video until they were sitting in their living room watching it.

I dunno, but I can't count the number of calls I've had from couples I shot that said had they known how awesome the video was they would have spent more on video and less on photography. It's a common theme when they get the final product. They saw the demos, they saw the cover art and DVDs.. but still didn't realize how much they liked the video until they were sitting in their living room watching it.

Interesting point Mike - how would they have spent more money on video? Would they have got you to start earlier or purchased a highlight? I too have had that said to me and thought it potentially could be a double edged statement...on one hand they could have spent more on me but on another, they could have chosen someone who costs more

I think Mike is saying that after the wedding the couples realize how valuable the video is and realize they should have been prepared to spend more to get it.