One thing that I have always had an issue with, is the concept put out that wedding photographers gouge, or are charging rediculous amounts of money. Now my figures are based on being informed up until the last wedding that I shot 10 years ago. Although I doubt that prices have changed much since then. Probably decreased,
Let me give some perspective. While I was never interested in being in this price range - many people cringe at having to pay $1500 for a wedding. That would even have to include albums. Many photographers that I knew were in this range. Some were charging $500 to $1000 and giving all files only. A fact. About the maximum one photographer could average per year is 1 wedding every week of the year. But the reality is that a full time effort was more realistically 25 to 30 weddings per year for those that I knew. You can do the math. In fact it is this level of photography where there is the most competition.
For my busy years as a wedding photographer who printed all of my own work, I only searched for clients who were willing to spend in the $3500 to $5000 range. In my area most people thought that my prices were ridiculous. But I managed to find enough work to survive. My weddings per year were generally 12-15. Each wedding consumed about 4 weeks of my time from dealing with clients before during and after the wedding, to shooting, processing files and designing albums and print orders, etc, etc, etc. Through the week I spent much time meeting with potential clients and spending an hour or more with each only to have them not book me, as well as care for my studio. I had to maintain the overhead of a store.
There are a few very elite wedding photographers in major US centres would may demand amounts into $10,000 or more.
There is little competition in these areas. It is about who you know and your connections with wealthy people for the most part. They also have assistants, staff, large overheads and advertising costs to keep up appearances. As well, I have been enlightened to the fact that the many of the photographers who are photographing the stars, have the “privilege“ of being able to do that. You get the point.
What it all boils down to is that - except for possibly the last tier of wedding photographers - most wedding photographers either have to suppliment their income with other jobs and probably have wives with steady income - or are starving artists who sacrifice because they love their craft. I imagine it would be difficult to find a photographer who nets $75,000 a year (in fact most pro and full time photographers I knew where more like $30,000 to $40,000 gross income before expenses) - which is a far cry from the 100‘s of thousands of dollars that people add up in their head when they hear a number like $3,000 or $5,000 or even $1,000 for a wedding. My children have decent paying normal jobs with incomes of $60,000 + per year and have total security, benefits, bonuses, and yearly wage increases, etc. The reason that most people take the gamble of being in business for themselves and making sacrifices to do that, is to have a greater return than a 9-5 job. And of course you would presume that an artist - a creative - could even demand more.
BTW - RELATED TO THIS THREAD - when I shot weddings digitally, my frame count was around 3,000 to 3,500 as a lone photographer. I shot for around 5-6 1/2 hours during the wedding day. With film I generally shot 12-15 rolls of 36 exposure film per wedding. It was costly and it took more time - was more deliberate to manually focus, crank shutters, etc. My hard costs of film, film processing and proofing, prints and albums costs averaged $1200 to $1500 per wedding that I might spend 3 to 4 weeks on and charge $3500 for. Going digital greatly reduced my film and film processing costs, but that was replaced with the need for more expensive gear and far more of my time managing files and processing them.
This is just my experience, but a pretty good reality check That the figures being charged per wedding mean nothing. I remember talking to one well meaning businessman in my town who suggested I would benefit my studio if I had a low price like Sears. I showed him the math. At $9.95 and doing 1,000 portraits per year (which I later found out that Sears didn’t even do in most stores) is $10,000 a year - 3 a day - every day of the year. No thanks. Ok how about trying to get $19.95 (actually a tough sell) $20,000 a Year to run a studio and look after my families needs. No thank you. Of course I could never find a thousand people to pay for portraits in my community if I tried.
Been a long time since I’ve thought about or responded to something about weddings. LOL
——-