Packages run from $200 to $450 and all include 5 hours of photography, a photo CD of digital images, consultations before the wedding, and online image hosting for print purchasing. For more info PM me with your email and I'll get you the package specifics.

Samples are here: http://flickr.com/photos/sbottitta/sets/72157600859004435/
I'm not one to advertise my services unless someone approaches me with questions, but I am just trying to branch out on my own and do my own thing. I've had several PM me and figured there might be other members on here who are in need of some quality, affordable photography for your special day.

BTW, regardless of my rep on here, I actually am a decent person and will be prompt, alert and friendly to you and your guests.

[Edited on July 28, 2007 at 4:23 PM. Reason : Dammit, wrong section. ]

7/28/2007 4:22:28 PM

can't sleep - tony on my mind

7/28/2007 4:25:01 PM

No, wedding photography!

7/28/2007 4:27:33 PM

really. I think people who take pictures at weddings have such poor taste. Here they are at SOMEONE ELSE'S wedding, snapping pictures like it's fucking Disneyland or something. There ought to be laws against that kind of shit

7/28/2007 4:31:36 PM

Don't knock it till you've tried it.

7/29/2007 4:22:26 AM

bttt

8/3/2007 10:59:54 PM

I'm not a pro or anything, but you should definitely consider investing in a nice flash for wedding photography. The built-in flashes on point-and-shoots are not going to produce that great of results for the kind of stuff you are trying to do. For about $150 you can get a great external that you can hold in your hand and that syncs up to your built in flash so you can bounce it or use it at different angles for fill lighting.

8/4/2007 12:43:25 PM

that one bride is EXTREMELY HOT. can i have her digits?

very good work, btw... good luck with it! if i was in the US, i would call you for my marriage!

8/4/2007 12:52:52 PM

no offense, but your prices are way too high for that kind of quality

8/4/2007 1:12:02 PM

Thanks, OEP.

And to any others who would like to contact me, just wanted to mention I will be purchasing a semi-pro cameras in the upcoming months and will be producing photos of superior quality to the ones shown on my Flickr page.

8/4/2007 9:06:52 PM

bttt

8/10/2007 11:53:00 PM

bttt

8/13/2007 4:53:48 PM

bttt

8/16/2007 1:19:23 PM

cddweller... dgrin member?

8/16/2007 1:41:23 PM

Never heard of it, looks like a neat board though.

8/16/2007 1:51:38 PM

bttt

8/26/2007 2:18:31 AM

bttt

8/29/2007 2:08:21 AM

bttt

9/4/2007 1:13:43 PM

bttt

9/9/2007 9:50:28 PM

bttt

9/14/2007 10:18:25 AM

no one will take you seriously at those prices. Hell, we charge 1300-1500 bucks for 4 hrs and an album and are still on the very low end of things. Also, giving your photos away is a very bad idea from a business standpoint. You cut out almost every chance at residual income from reprints. If you get set up with even a smaller pro lab they will ship directly to the customer for you so you don't actually have to deal with having that kind of thing.

9/14/2007 10:50:09 AM

paging JBaz his skills pwn urs.

9/14/2007 1:21:33 PM

bttt

9/22/2007 8:26:59 AM

Wedding photography is pretty hard to get into. I've done two so far by myself and each time it turned out to be bitter, not because of the event, but after the event was done and when I try to collect people just get bitchy. I'm no pro yet and because of that fact, I've had a lot of people trying to take advantages of my photography skills. I'm also job shadowing a local pro wedding photog and it has helped me a lot in what to look for and the ins and out of shooting very emotional events like weddings. Unless you are still trying to learn the ropes around wedding photography, charging 200-500 is still fine.

I would do this, draw up a nice contract and charge $100-200 sitting fee for booking and another $200-$900 for covering the event. Don't give your pictures away on CD, if you do, only allow 800x600 proofs with your watermark or copyright on them, and have them select the few they want for prints. You can give them various pricing on how many pictures simple event covering will give (say bare bones $500 will net 10 good pictures for 4x6 print) and so on. Setup another pricing scheme for additional 4x6, 8x11, 11x14 and so on prints, and including extra's such as framing, matting and other artwork accessories. Also, a big thing is scrap booking. The photog I'm shadowing charges between 500-1000 extra for that service and hires on a separate graphic artist to do it for him.

If your going to be doing wedding photography as the main portion of your business, charge like you would as if this will be the only income for you. Don't sell yourself short and have a standard fee already in your mind. People call to get my photography service and try to get it for free and people get pissed off when I say I charge. Everyone thinks photography is a simple point and shoot job because all of the cheap POS digital cameras out now. The 1st wedding I did turned out to be a bad event because the bride didn't think (this is after the event) I "worked" all that hard for the 3 hours and though $300 (I asked for $800, but settled down to $300 since It was my first wedding event) was way too much! Even though I was running around like a mad man and making sure I had my settings on the camera correct. Color correcting and white balancing is still a big part of post processing on a professional scale and that still takes time. Probably took me a good 3 hours afterwards for processing 60 high quality pictures. I shoot in RAW+jpeg and always process in raw.

If you plan on getting a new semi-pro body in the near future, I would go full frame and make sure you get high quality fast glass. Get Canon or, if you can afford it, Hasselblad's! I plan on getting the new 5D mkII when that comes out in winter, unless I get a lot more business than I anticipate by then, of which I would then invest in the new 1Ds mkIII. The 30D 1.6cf is killing me for covering social events, works fine for motor sports and product photography as is. Unless I get a killer contract for next year covering AMA and MotoGP, I'll get two 40D's and a 300mm f/2.8.


And make sure you are comfortable and firm with your pricing. If they have a problem with the pricing, tell them "good day" and leave. People who try to low ball photographers will end up being too much of a hassle to deal with later on. Same goes for any other photography services, including magazines and businesses. If they are not willing to pay for it, chances are they will try to screw you at the end of the job. Have them sign a contract and be specific! Pay a lawyer to help you out on setting up a nice legal binding contract or buy some photography business books on how to do it yourself. I work 2 jobs, school and my own business and I have turned down quite a few people because I simply don't have time, unless it's something I want to do (most of the time for portfolio or for future networking/paid work) or they are willing to pay good money.

[Edited on September 22, 2007 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/22/2007 5:16:35 PM

I started out as an apprentice which helped me a lot. I use contracts, wedding info packages (solid prices but flexible service, free engagement/bridal sessions for instance) and haven't had any problems. Two out of four brides have already offered to pay me more up front before the final collection (two-piece: 20% deposit and 80% day-of). I collect swiftly and delicately, and as I am providing a service for a price, they just pay up knowing they're getting a really good deal. Works well for everybody and we're in a fantastic mood when the contracts are being signed, it's practically eerie. I'm job-shadowing too (apprenticeship, say it, say it often!) and it has taught me so much about the business.

I definately agree with the extending of the price range, but $200 for sitting down and chatting with me? Gah. And I don't mind them getting full rights to the images, they have price concerns too and might not want to buy prints only from me. I'm focused on the lower-budget couples unlike a lot of guys out there, mainly because I know what it's like to put together a wedding like that (my sister had to). If they want to take it to Kinkos or Walmart, that's perfectly cool with me, but I know the photolab I use is superb. I just need to gather the cash to get some prints to show off to them so they know what kind of quality to expect in their prints.

The service I use now actually allows all sorts of sizes and cropping, the client uses the interface independent of me and really takes the pressure off of me for custom-ordering for individuals attending the reception (they get business cards directing them to the website gallery so they can buy stuff too). I also include photo books with purchases over $350 and design them entirely myself because I live to do that kind of thing, lol. Again, I just charge barely enough to cover my costs, not trying to penny-pinch at the moment.

The secret is to just get a full-time job for your income and work on wedding photography as much as possible on the side until it builds into an actual business, at which time I'll be doing a lot of what you recommend. It's just that right now I can't afford to charge that much, ironically. I guess you have to spend money to make money, it's economics 101.

Quote :

"The 1st wedding I did turned out to be a bad event because the bride didn't think (this is after the event) I "worked" all that hard for the 3 hours "

The first thing my boss taught me was if I don't need to be busy for 30 seconds, act busy. Work up a sweat, "run around like a madman" while acting cool doing it and for God's sake, sign a contract before you get started. If you choose your clients carefully, they'll recognize your skill, your efforts, and your devotion, and appreciate the price.

Just don't charge too much to start with. People make fun of me on here for charging a tenth of the price and offering what my boss offers, but I chalk it up to being an apprentice: underpromise and overdeliver as a policy. $300 earns a certain level of respect, in my opinion, but $1300 for my level of experience is downright pretentious.

Hasselblad. Heh. Yeah, someday. Just settled for a Nikon D80, 3 GBs memory (don't have RAW software, gotta go with fine JPG for now), a kit lens (15-55mm f/3.8+), a telephoto (135mm f/1.4), and a Tamron (55-200mm f/3.5+). Not nearly enough but enough to get started, I hope.

Would have put more thought into answering your post/PM but I'm on the run here. Thanks for your ideas, and much luck to ya. If you want to partner up sometime (can't be everywhere at once), let me know, photographers need love too.

[Edited on September 22, 2007 at 8:04 PM. Reason : .]

9/22/2007 7:58:20 PM

Don't know if it was a typo on your part, but there is no 135mm f/1.4 lens, and even if they made one you couldn't afford it.

However, you should get a fast lens if you're serious about weddings, especially if you don't even own a flash. Get the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, you can afford one of those.

I don't recommend the other two lenses you mentioned (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and the 55-200 f/4-5.6). I own that kit lens and even though I haven't replaced it yet I almost never ever reach for it. Instead I use one of my primes because they're faster, sharper, and always yield better results than my kit lens. A suitable replacement would be the 17-35mm f/2.8, 17-55mm f/2.8, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, or 18-200mm VR just for your info.

My point is I recommend the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (it was the kit lens for the D70 so you should be able to get it used for about $200) and the Nikon 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6G (about $100). Then you can buy the D80 body without the kit lens and that should be within your price range and those lenses will cover a wider range while remaining brighter pretty much through out.

I also highly recommend a dedicated flash as soon as you can afford one because, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the onboard flash just won't cut it, even the one on the D80. If I were you I'd get a used D50 or D70/D70s and buy a flash with the money saved. You can easily buy the SB-600 flash and 50mm f/1.8 lens with the difference.

If you're serious about this and you need help, hit me up. I'm also an apprentice looking for more work/experience. Good luck.

9/24/2007 6:55:21 AM

Yeah I was going to say, 135mm f/1.4, I bet that thing costs a fortune

9/24/2007 9:07:26 AM

Sorry, 135mm 1:2.8.

Quote :

"Get the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, you can afford one of those."

Someday! Already got the body, just need to save up for the lenses. Expensive stuff but well worth it, it's just a matter of time... SB-800 was my choice to start with, why do you suggest the SB-600?

Yes, I am very very serious. I just bought the bare minimum to get myself started working budget weddings, and when I save up enough and/or can find a full-time job, hell yeah, we're gonna get some gear up in this house.

[Edited on September 24, 2007 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .]

9/24/2007 10:48:26 AM

:p need to convert to the canon side of photography

9/24/2007 12:45:24 PM

That's fine, the D80 is a fine camera, I use one myself. You need real sharp lenses to take full advantage of that much resolution, and get a tripod or monopod. You'll be a lot more prone to camera shake than with lower megapixel cameras.

I still highly suggest the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, even if you're on a budget. I've seen it sell for as little as $50 used at local camera stores and brand new it's a little over $100. It's a very sharp lens and will allow you to shoot available light indoors wide open which I find essential for wedding photography. When I shoot event photography over 90% of my shots are with the 50.

The SB-800 is almost double the cost of the SB-600. I've used both and I find very little reason to upgrade to the SB-800 for most people. Again, the money saved can be used much more wisely in my opinion.

It's an expensive hobby so it's important to know how to allocate your budget. Get the best lens you can afford. A nice expensive lens and a cheap body will give you a nicer picture than the reverse. You should also do lots of research on your own before investing a lot of money on camera gear. Good luck.

9/24/2007 1:31:31 PM

^^ coughD3cough

9/24/2007 1:32:36 PM

Quote :

"Also, giving your photos away is a very bad idea from a business standpoint. You cut out almost every chance at residual income from reprints."

you also piss off every client.

I think giving away the digital prints is a huge opporunity for wedding photogs. Just because the existing industry is so damn entrenched in "OMG we can only make money from prints", doesn't mean it's the right way, or the best way to do it.

The fact is most people PREFER digital. It's not that they want the files to go get hundreds of prints, they just want them to put on facebook, digital photo frames and desktop wallpapers.

I'd argue you could end up making MORE money selling the files on CD at decent resolutions, than you will getting people to buy absurd print packages. And are also more likely to sell prints later because people don't want the hassle of doing it themselves.

9/24/2007 3:05:19 PM

^ no doubt.

I even asked our wedding photographer for something like this, and she wouldn't do it because she had no idea how to price it... combined with the mentality you described above.

So we took the proofs and scanned them ourselves, and added a couple hundred bucks to the fee we paid her for the actual photography part.

9/24/2007 3:50:54 PM

There is no logic that could convince me that the photographer should be able to retain the rights for pictures that I'm paying for him/her to take. They get the initial prints to charge for (and I'm sure there'd be plenty enough for them to make a nice profit) and I get the raw images which I may or may not go back to them to make more copies further down the road. The more willing they are to work with me on this the more willing I am to come back to them and refer them to others. If I'm paying someone to take pictures the pictures belong to me, I don't believe in paying someone to lease something like that.

9/24/2007 3:55:06 PM

I think that if you sell the actual prints, you should give them the high res pic for it, maybe at an additional cost.

Quote :

"^^ coughD3cough"

Cough cough 1Ds MkIII. 20.1MP of full frame glory. The D3 competes with the 1D MkIII, but those are for sports photography and not for studio work. Well technically the D3 also competes with the 5D too since its FF, but they don't match 1Ds'.

[Edited on September 24, 2007 at 4:02 PM. Reason : well....]

9/24/2007 4:01:08 PM

Quote :

"I even asked our wedding photographer for something like this, and she wouldn't do it because she had no idea how to price it... combined with the mentality you described above. So we took the proofs and scanned them ourselves, and added a couple hundred bucks to the fee we paid her for the actual photography part."

Absolutely, without exception, this is the process every single person I know has done with wedding photos. It's absolutely ridiculous. The photog would make more money with less hassle to just sell an initial proof set WITH an optional set of raw digitals.

9/24/2007 4:23:25 PM

maybe not even include the raw file, just high res jpeg's should suffice, once it's been color and exposure corrected (if needed). Most people won't even know what to do with raw files.

9/24/2007 4:52:58 PM

I won't say that the D3 is better than the 1D/1Ds MkIII, it's a matter of opinion (and speculation at this point since the D3 isn't available for review yet) but simply saying that a 20.1MP sensor automatically makes the 1Ds MkIII a better camera is nonsense.

Given a choice I would take a 1Ds MkIII over the D3 just because it's worth more so I can sell it, buy the D3 plus a couple REALLY nice lenses. I personally prefer Nikon's ergonomics and wireless TTL lighting system among other things, but if it weren't for the D3's full frame sensor I would definitely say that Canon's the way to go for high end. But now that there's a full frame Nikon digital there's much less need for people to convert to Canon, and I'm sure plenty of pros will switch back to Nikon.

Oh, and I can't wait to see the D3/D300's LCD screen. Three inches of 266dpi liquid crystal heaven! It'll make it so much easier to review pictures out on the field.

These are my opinions based on my experiences and what I've read but so far I don't see any reason to convert to Canon right now, though that wasn't the case before the D3's announcement. Ok, well, the 5D is a lot more affordable, but I don't think I could stand the slow picture review and the crappy LCD screen.

[Edited on September 24, 2007 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2007 7:46:00 PM

i tend to give the people the pictures because i don't feel like dealing with the reprints. at some point i will probably go into reprint mode and such. I also I choose to accept currently the downfalls of giving the couple rights to the photos. downfalls I probably won't deal with for too awful much longer. I've shot a model before who had some random guy "edit" the picture later on. he did a piss poor job. she has very little taste in that kind of stuff so she puts it on her facebook and such. that kind of thing tears me up on the inside. also you may see pictures they printed out later and say "why the hell did you print this out on you fuckin computer?! these are professional quality photos and you are going to print them on your poorly color calibrated low resolution home photo printer that you got for 20 bucks with your kodak easysucks?" make me want to say "don't show those to anybody unless you plan on printing them right"

oh and by the way, there is no way that you can say that the D3 is not suited for studio photography. 20mp is almost gimmicky. when you stuff that many megapixels on a censor you might as well go medium format. with the lower mega pixels on the full frame that is optimized for clarity and low noise, it leave opportunity for higher dynamic range. not to mention... I don't believe there are many lenses that anybody has to offer that would warrant 20something resolution on a 35mm body. in all honesty, if we want to get picky with cameras for studio, shouldn't really look toward nikon or canon.fuji could kick both's asses in that area and i'm thinking that new sigma sd14 is worth the look too.

9/24/2007 8:53:20 PM

Just requested to have this moved (thanks, synapse) from Classifieds to The Lounge, in case this confused anyone. I'll be starting a thread there purely for advertising, and I'd very much like to see more opinions in this thread. It's really fun talking about it.

9/24/2007 11:58:54 PM

i really like this one:

http://flickr.com/photos/sbottitta/580192351/



i'd use you if i was getting married.

9/25/2007 12:56:52 AM

did I mention you should never let your customers get digital copies of images? no. I said you shouldn't give them away. If a customer wants low res images for web use, we can work a deal. If they want higher res images for their own printing, they better expect to pay for it. By the time everything is all done I might have 20+ hours in each wedding (I have 3 this week, I think I know what I'm talking about here) and I'm not going to be doing all of this work AS A PROFESSIONAL TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING for jack shit.

9/25/2007 8:42:33 AM

I have no problem paying for them, but it shouldn't be extra, it should be a built in fee because you're basically saying, 'fuck you, you have to pay for the rights to YOUR pictures.' Technology should make things easier (and it does, it's easy for both people to have originals in these instances whereas the original camera technology only allowed for the negatives). If the photographer presents advantages for the customer to come back to them (using their printing services) then they've earned the extra money, otherwise it's their fault for not being lucrative enough for repeats.

9/25/2007 8:53:48 AM

I'm not out to penny-pinch, and if they want to take the prints somewhere to get 'em done, I say let them take the risk. I know the print lab I use is fantastic and affordable and inform them of this up front, but at least they have some control over who prints their stuff. That's why my online hosting is included in the original wedding package price, but not like an add-on (like additional hours / travelling expenses are). They have the option to go with me or someone else, which is hurting me right now, but I'm not experienced enough as a professional photographer to make demands like that on my clients.

I mean, I admit to them up front that I am an apprentice and let them know exactly how many weddings I've worked, along with providing an online portfolio. They chose me for a reason, whether it's the price or the quality, but for $200-$450, we're not talking about an elite destination wedding here. This is something practical, tasteful and affordable, so why not let them have a little freedom with the prints? Giving my clients a little breathing room is a good way to start my business from scratch, I think.

9/25/2007 9:11:04 AM

I'd have some of your better pictures printed at a variety of places, from the best print places down to wal-mart (assuming theirs aren't good--I honestly don't know) just to show them what they can expect out of all the different places/prices for prints. I know that's somehting I'd be interested in seeing.

9/25/2007 9:20:51 AM

I've already ordered prints from the print lab I use to analyze them. My boss uses them too and is in love with them, and she is more anal than the pickiest photog I know. We'll see.

I'm extremely unhappy with Kinko's and Kerr Drug, for sure.

9/25/2007 9:22:42 AM

Cool, and it seems like you actually give a damn and aren't just out to make a buck..and most importantly are honest with customers. I'd much rather somebody say they're fairly new at it, don't have all the crazy expensive equipment and in return don't charge as much than lie to me and do a shitty job after acting like they're the best photographer in the country. Honesty will go a long way, IMO.

9/25/2007 9:26:37 AM

it's not about trying to make a buck, it's about trying to make a living. It is very difficult to be a photographer for a living. Your fees have to be realistic in what you would expect to need to make a living wage. If you only do one or two a week but it's consistent year-round, you need to price things out accordingly for what you'd need to earn in that week if you had a good 9-5 job sitting at a desk. This is of course AFTER all of your expenses with proofing, posting online, albums, etc. This can easily be a couple hundred dollars, depending on what the package you provide includes. If you don't get weddings consistantly all year (spring and fall are the seasons for weddings out here) you need to add THAT into how much you charge, just to make sure you save up enough to get through the winter months when there's nothing to photograph for a paycheck. If you have another job that earns a steady paycheck, then you do weddings on the side, you can get away with charging whatever you want, inexpensive or really expensive.

9/25/2007 10:28:00 AM

Oh yeah.

Never depend on this for a regular income unless you've got the ball rolling, obviously.

9/25/2007 10:41:05 AM

Quote :

"I won't say that the D3 is better than the 1D/1Ds MkIII, it's a matter of opinion (and speculation at this point since the D3 isn't available for review yet) but simply saying that a 20.1MP sensor automatically makes the 1Ds MkIII a better camera is nonsense."

I did not say anything about the 1D's being a better camera. I was noting you can't compare the 1Ds MkIII with the D3. It competes with the 5D and the 1D Mk III. They aren't even in the same class. You are looking at different price points and different features for each, which can be a couple grand apart. It's the same thing about people comparing the 40D to the new D300's. They aren't even on the same price point. The D300's are 1800ish while the 40D is 1300ish. that's about a 500 difference in features and functions.

The D3 is trying to bridge the gap of having a fast sports camera with FF for studio work and good low noise at high ISO. I think it should pan out for them since there really isn't a product out there like that yet. If canon updated their 5D to include a faster fps (i'd be happy with 5fps, faster would be better though) and updated the sensor and such, that would be some serious competition for the D3.

The D3 (4999) should come out the same time as the 1Ds MkIII (7999) but it competes with the 1D MkIII (4499) and the 5D (2399). There's rumors about a new D3x flagship 22-24MP camera that should compete with the 1Ds, but there's no word from Nikon about it officially.

I also have to say kudos to Canon, because they kept the lid on the 40D so well. There were only rumors about the 40D until the month before it came out with so much press releases. They've had quite a bit of great success in supplying the demand and actually not having product shortages, unlike their 1D MkIII's. At the same time, they announced the new 1Ds. Two days later, Nikon released info about the D3 and the D300 (both should be out in November), which shows that Nikon is rushing to get new products out the door and I think they might run into some problems with that, but we'll see. It's too soon to tell and both companies are top notch.

9/25/2007 10:55:25 AM