Equipment. The very fact that we're bringing up HDV proves a point. Both tasks use expensive equipment. Both require talent. The typical videographer will have to buy a new camera, new computer, update software every couple of years. Thousands of dollars.

I know many good photographers that use their old and excellent and expensive film cameras for many years and even with new digital technology, don't really need to upgrade.

The reason prices are so much lower for videography is that people are accepting prices that, if they're full time, don't even cover the costs of their $2000 camera and "decent" computer, cover the rent/mortgage, car to go to and from weddings, etc.

There's a wide ranging client base to keep all of us busy BUT when I see a quantifiable 80-90% of price requests below the lowest base to sustain a business, WE are faced with a serious market problem.

Fortunately most of my video income does not come from weddings. Others are less fortunate. I can turn around a very low budget cable spot in two days and make as much as the 6 days it would take to shoot and edit a wedding based on the predominate rate for weddings in my market.

Rhett Allen wrote:

*****Why doesn't someone from the wedding industry write a really great article with in-depth detail and photo's of how a good wedding video works and what it should cost (what it "SHOULD" cost) and submit it to BRIDE magazine a few times a year? That's a start, could even bring you some good business too.******


The link below is not for videography, but it makes a good point.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/031222.htm


John

"The link below is not for videography, but it makes a good point."

Interesting article, but as I've noted in other posts I think many photographers do significantly overcharge their customers for what they deliver, especially in terms of whether they even give clients copies of all their good pictures. This appears to be changing somewhat with the advent of digital photography and increasing competition, but many photographers still appear to believe they have a right to gouge their customers for simple snapshot-sized prints. And I've met very few wedding photographers who have any concept of how to minimize their impact on wedding videography, even those who swear they'll do their best to keep out of the way. It's time for wedding photographers to make a major change in the way they do business, and if the old-timers won't do so then hopefully the newcomers will.

Kevin

Im sure most people are thinking the same thing about wedding videographers being over paid. The difference is photography always comes first in terms of budget. Videography is more like a luxury to most people.

I do both photography and videography at weddings. Most videographers can be just as annoying in terms of getting in the way of shots. It depends on the person.

John

Why can't photopraphers use a zoom lens for CU? :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Young Lee : Why can't photopraphers use a zoom lens for CU? :) -->>>

It's a little more complicated than that. That's what years of experience teach you. Just because you "can" zoom, doesn't mean you should. If someone is getting paid to do a job professionally, they should do the best job they can. If there are other professionals working in the same place they should find a way to respect each others craft. That's part of being a "Pro".
As for pricing, I think you should get paid what you can get. I know of a guy in California who gets $7500 for a wedding shoot (photography). He has had other companies complain "you can't charge that!" His reply, "watch me!" Just because one person can't justify charging that price doesn't mean that others have the right to tell them they can't. Would you rather the amateurs control the pricing? That's where it's heading with attitudes like that. I saw a wedding album once that the couple paid $10K for. It was some of the best photography I've ever seen! It' looked like a glossy ad campaign for "Guess" or something like that, you know, something a "professional" commercial photographer would do. It didn't look like a typical album at all and you could definitely see where the extra money went... TALENT.
I have heard it said from a professional wedding shooter that you should only expect to get about 50% of the clients that walk thru your door. If you get more than that, raise your price, if you get less than that, lower your prices. Of course that depends on wether you've done the marketing to get them in your door in the first place.

John: My gripe about photographers is that some of them use a pricing scheme which takes advantage of the customer to an extent which is ultimately pointless, and would not be tolerated for any other wedding vendor service. It's impressive that they've managed to get away with this, but I think we're seeing that start to change now.

As for people getting in each other's shots, it's unfortunate that there's an inherent conflict involved in both professions trying to do their jobs. But in most situations it shouldn't be too hard for a photographer to work around a videographer with no apparent impact on the finished pictures, whereas the quality of a video is diminished every time the photographer gets in a shot during an important moment. So it would seem that the main issue for photographers isn't whether someone is in their way, but rather that they don't like being asked to modify their shooting style for the sake of the video. If we consider what's best for the customer, photographers should be willing to back off a little, and hopefully we'll gradually see progress on that.

"Would you rather the amateurs control the pricing? That's where it's heading with attitudes like that."

Where we're heading is that the free market will dictate how much people are willing to pay for both photography and videography, and it appears there's currently downward pressure on prices for both services. If this forces some established professionals to lower their prices to respond to less expensive competitors, then that will indicate they aren't demonstrating enough added value to sustain current prices. It's not up to any of us where this ends up, except to offer the best quality we can and try to convince potential customers to pay a fair price to get it. If they all decide to settle for amateur work and pricing, that will either mean that the amateurs have gotten pretty good or that customers simply don't care. Either way, you can't stop the trend by griping about it; just do better work.

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Shaw

Either way, you can't stop the trend by griping about it; just do better work. -->>>

I agree with doing better work. If you are always improving your craft you will see a definate increase in sales! I am definately not the best at videography but I always work on improving.

I haven't had a bride tell me she was unhappy with my work. My demo they watch at the time of the booking is the same type of work they will get after I finish their wedding. Most times, I have improved a bunch since my last demo. I redo my demo's in January and July with some of my latest work.

I would also say that many business in my area do better work, but they also charge much more for their product. Kind of like the difference between a Lexus and a Toyota, both get you to the same place. One is just a bit nicer than the other. Not only that, there a big differences between a film type wedding and a documentary style of videography. I would like to venture into a cinematic style but I need to improve on that type of shooting style before I attempt to sell it!

Sometimes, gripping about makes you feel better :) Some photographers DO NOT PLAY NICE! I always attempt to have a good relationship will all the photographers I run into.

Jon

Well when the bride is paying $3000 for the photography and $750 for the videographer, who do you think gets to be "in the way."

BTW, I've ALWAYS had good relations with the photogs at my weddings. We usually talk about positioning and, in addition, when the relationship works well, we're eachother eyes. They'll spot me when I'm getting something good and come over to grab a still and I'll do likewise, without problem.

Alas there's still no good reason why videographer should be paid so much less.

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Seeman : Well when the bride is paying $3000 for the photography and $750 for the videographer, who do you think gets to be "in the way."

BTW, I've ALWAYS had good relations with the photogs at my weddings. We usually talk about positioning and, in addition, when the relationship works well, we're eachother eyes. They'll spot me when I'm getting something good and come over to grab a still and I'll do likewise, without problem.

Alas there's still no good reason why videographer should be paid so much less. -->>>


There are many companies in my area that charge 1900+ and get it on a consistant basis. I wouldn't even do a single camera wedding for $750.

Jon