been asked to photograph a wedding for someone who can't afford a professional of a charge of £900, ill have to be there the whole day and its for my sisters friend etc, I was gonna say as a joke "ill charge £899 to save them cash but thats overkill charge, whats a reasonable offer?

Stop being tight, I did my sisters wedding for free

Honestly I've got no idea how much to charge. Have you doen weddings before?

What are they expecting from you? Just a DVD of images, or prints and an album?
I know one local photog who won't do any more weddings because of the time it took her to edit the album and submit her selections to the couple for their approval.
Shooting on the day is just the beginning - I don't think £900 for what (for some people) becomes a week's work isn't outrageous, so just check with the couple what their expectations from you are, and price accordingly.

I agree. Even though my sisters wedding wasnt a serious/professional shoot I spent the next 2 weeks working on the photos and producing a photo book.

Agreed

Find out what they want first

Think up an appropriate charge.

thats me buggered then



ive been photographer for my dads friends ye, and its my sisters friend not sister

If they want you to do the snaps, bang them on a CD and hand it over then a couple of hundred quid maybe? Still saves them a lot and its not bad for a few hours snapping for you. If they want the 'whole package' though then they shouldnt expect it that cheap IMO, thats why they've been quoted £900 in the first place.

If it were me, I would be tempted to charge for any overheads, ie. films, processing, etc although if it's a digital camera it would be the price of a DVD and a few quid for your time, as taking wedding pictures is good experience, and if you are thinking of doing this for a living would give you some good material for a portfolio.

Sounds good John, but as an overhead I'd also slip in a charge for a couple of extra batteries and memory cards that would be essential for the day.

Don't forget that special lens you need.

While it's nice to be asked to do these kinds of jobs, you have remember that you're effectively taking food out of the mouths of professionals. I don't think £900 for a day's work is excessive - it can be a damned long day if the pro is covering the bride's preparations, has an assistant running around with the groom, two people at the church or whatever, post-processing and producing DVD slideshows and printing albums.

In fact, I'd say that was cheap, going by what I know some top-notch wedding photographers charge.

I know nothing about photography relative to you lot, but Heather's right - £900 is cheap.

Really? Being the official photographer at a wedding is bloody hard work, and if it's only you with no help it's even harder work.
You have to be places before the bride and groom, stay until they've left and get to the next destination before they arrive and do it all over again.
Obviously it's easier if the ceremony, reception and evening do are all in the same place, but the chances are the bride and groom will still want pictures taken at a different location.
It's easy saying just bang the images out to a CD and hand that over but it takes time to do that and that's time you could be getting more shots.

Bratty, if I was doing a wedding all by myself I'd want at least 3 fully charged batteries, 4 empty 8GB memory cards, a tripod and a monopod.
Obviously those requirements diminish if there's another photographer involved.
It'll be a very long day whatever happens (I'd estimate about 20 hours).
If I'm going to do a 20 hour day for someone that isn't family I'd ask for payment. Just how much depends on how valuable your time is to you.

Mark

They were discussing this on TWiP a few episodes back. Quite a lot of emphasis was put on the point made by HK above.

Personally, I'd want to (and nearly did, but it got called off) do a wedding for free as a secondary photog just to get some experience. I don't like photographing people as it is, and self confidence or belief doesn't exist in Edd-land. I'd just want expenses covered, and then once I've done one and seen how it goes ask for sensible money subsequent times.

I have to say about the last thing I'd ever want to do is shoot a wedding, but I think your idea of being a second camera for the experience is sound.

I know a couple of wedding shooters, one of whom was a pioneer of the professional video side of it. It's a horrible job, long hours, heavy gear, annoying guests... Not for me.

I've done a few weddings for family & friends and as others have said, it is hard work to do well (if indeed I ever have).

I don't know about your good self Bratty, but I am not a professional photographer and make that plain to the Couple before the event. They know that I know which way round to hold a camera, which is why they ask me to do it but I make it clear that I do not promise a professional standard, (I don't presume to know how to do that under-fire), and so cannot charge a professional fee. I ask them to consider what they expect and how they will feel if they don't get it, (photographically speaking). If they still want me to do the shoot, and I still want to do it, I charge a fee to cover my expenses plus a little dependent upon my relationship with them; it's more about a "favour" than the "fee". If you charge a high fee you *must, without fail* deliver a high standard of work, no excuses!

If it is for family & friends and you charge a high fee then something goes wrong, (if you've done any weddings before you'll know the kind of unexpected things that can stand between you and the shot you have in your mind), you probably won't get sued but you do stand to sour relationships & loose friends.

That said, it certainly sharpens your skills. Go for it & Good Luck !