Why is it frowned upon to offer a cheaper service?

[blackrose89]

I've seen quite a few photographers strongly discourage against people who aren't greatly skilled, shooting wedding and such for a cheaper price ($300). But where does that leave the brides/grooms who simply can't afford more. What are they suppose to do?

Ok I completely stand by you need to be 100% honest about your quality (and this is about the ethics/quality part, not really the legalities) and you need to be truthful about what you can deliver. But.... aren't the cheap $300 helping out people who can't afford more? People on here strongly discourage people from shooting cheap or even free weddings. But where does that leave the brides/grooms who physically can't afford an experienced well rounded photographer? By that logic, if it's ethically wrong for someone to shoot a cheap or free wedding and should never be done, you're saying it's better for those who can't afford $3000 for a wedding photographer to be stuck with no photos.

Every industry has some lesser quality service/product for a cheaper price. Look at this example in other industries: I'm sure Mcdonalds is an abomination to real cuisine and those chefs who trained hard to be great cooks. Is the 5 star resturant that serves $50 lean steaks better quality and better for you then a $1 cheeseburger? Of course, but that doesn't make Mcdonalds wrong or unethical for offering a much lesser qaulity product at a much more affordable price. If we only had top qaulity food and no other sources like Mcdonalds,the people who couldn't afford to eat the fine steaks would be stuck and may never be able to afford to go out to eat. Again, Mcdonalds is not doing anything wrong, just offering people who couldn't afford the better quality an option to still get to eat out.
Or what about car dealerships (again if we're going by peopel being honest) Which is better? The car dealership who offers brand new cars with full warranties, or the other dealership who sells 15 year old cars with no warranty for a much much lesser price? Of course the full dealership with brand new cars is better, but again, by having the used car dealerships, although not as good quality, is still offering an option to someone who cannot afford more. Why shouldn't photography offer the same?

Especially in this economy. In this economy I'm sure a good number of brides can't afford a $1500 photographer. So why can't photography have a cheaper option for lesser quality like every other industry does?

I'm not trying to start a debate or sound ignorant, I'm genually curious what you would advise to a bride/groom who couldn't afford a well rounded photographer if their were no cheaper options available??

[jogutierrez]

Great questions. I have often wondered this myself, and being an amateur I have even done this for friends and family.

[Sean_Anderson]

I will be shooting my sister in law's wedding in january down in FL, and I am by no means, a professional. I am shooting it for free (obviously, since she's family), but mainly b/c she is paying for her own wedding and cannot afford anything outrageous...I am devoting this summer to research and practice...I've also been talking to a lot of my photographer friends about the gear I'm using, and other than only having 1 body, I think the prime lenses I have, paired w/ my SB-600 flash that is on the way, will suffice for the setting...of course I'll practically live at the venue when I get there a week in advance...it also helps that she's getting married at the same location I did

[verdesardog]

blackrose, it's just the pros that are discourging amatures from shooting weddings because they feel it will cut into thier profit.

Weddings are hard work, if you want to do it go for it I say!

I have shot exactly two weddings. One bride was thrilled with what I did and the other was totally unsatisfied. I will not shoot another...

[Sean_Anderson]

Originally Posted by verdesardog

blackrose, it's just the pros that are discourging amatures from shooting weddings because they feel it will cut into thier profit.

Weddings are hard work, if you want to do it go for it I say!

I have shot exactly two weddings. One bride was thrilled with what I did and the other was totally unsatisfied. I will not shoot another...

What did you charge for both? Did these prices include the prints? I like the challenge of a wedding, but I have a feeling I'll be very stressed the day of...I'm in the clear though since this is family

[verdesardog]

I did that many, many years ago, don't really remember what I charged. Sorry

The grooms were both good friends, I probably only charged for the prints.

[Seawolf66]

I discourage people from doing stuff if they have never done something along the lines their think of to do, Amateurs do not understand what its all about taking photo's at weddings, That's my main gripe, Remember One thing that's a one shot deal unless you big pockets to re-stage the
wedding: just my two coppers I do not care if they have been at photography for 5yrs or longer. weddings are whole different game:

[Cross_]

Try putting it to clients this way: "You can hire a wedding photographer for $300. The quality of the photos will be 10% of what you would get from a $3000 photographer. Is that acceptable? Yes/No"

The reason why it's bad for pros should be obvious- customers get the mistaken idea that professional services can be had for a fraction of the money and not for what it actually costs people who make a living from photography. It's the same problem I have when I need to convince people that $100/hr of software development is justified when the customer might say "but there's an undergrad in India who will do it for $10 !"

The reason why it's bad for customers is that they might not get the quality they expect. It's (hopefully) a once-in-a-lifetime event. When the photos end up underexposed and blurry or with grandma Edna missing then the couple could end up being quite unhappy.

Finally it _could_ be bad for the amateur photographer as well if they get sued by the couple for breach of contract. This has happened in the past though I do not think it's that big of a risk.

Summary: amateur photographer will benefit, customer and pros will suffer

Especially in this economy. In this economy I'm sure a good number of brides can't afford a $1500 photographer. So why can't photography have a cheaper option for lesser quality like every other industry does?

In what economy are people happy about spending $1500 on photos ?
If it's made clear to the customer that they can/should not expect the same quality as that of a veteran wedding photographer then I have no ethical problems with it. However, keep in mind that many couples are okay with spending a fortune on dresses, rings, and roses and then when the budget gets tight they might cut corners at the wrong end (photography). For my wedding the $2000 spent on the photographer were well worth it even though this was the single largest expense (bouquets hand-made by bridesmaids, rings designed by myself, inexpensive dress, etc)

[Bobby Deal]

Personally I say others can have all the weddings. I find them more work then they are worth in most cases.

Now doing a wedding cheap for someone who can not afford more is one thing. Doing a wedding cheap for someone who can afford a more seasoned and thus high priced photographer is another. Helping out someone who simply would not get photos otherwise is your choice just don't undercut those who are making their living doing this when the client is capable of paying for the pro just so you can say you shoot weddings. This is the scenario that I believe most take exception to.

Also as has been mentioned making sure the client knows your honest skill level is important. If you are not a pro they should know that and they should know that your price is not a professional price and that they are paying a sub par price for a reason.

Bottom line is everyone starts somewhere

[RV]

Originally Posted by Cross_

Try putting it to clients this way: "You can hire a wedding photographer for $300. The quality of the photos will be 10% of what you would get from a $3000 photographer. Is that acceptable? Yes/No"

Why don't you try to sell your self rather than bash others work to get some business?

What you say here is nothing further from the truth. How can you type a blanket statement like this and group all affordable photographers in such a way? Because you pay $3000 does not get you better quality, the only guarantee you will get with paying $3000 is the -$3000 in your bank statement.

I would argue that the photographer that you pay $3000 for is the one you are only getting the 10% of what the photographer that charges $300. When I got married, and I lived in a very high end area in respects to photography because of the cost of living and the amount of rich and famous that live here. (Carmel, Ca) I went to several different wedding photographers and they are were charging anywhere from $3500 to $7000 for what my wife and I were looking for. Yes they were well known photographers and they had awesome work, but I was not paying $7000 for photography, I was paying for their name, time, reputation, and this was the norm for this area when you went to a studio photographer. After months of inquiry, word of mouth, and research I found a newly started wedding photographer, that was willing to profide services at the golf outing the day prior, the morning of the wedding, the ceremony, the private beach session for me and my wife, and the reception for $900.

It was agreed that he would give me the raw images and no post was necessary. Now, what would I have got for $900 for the studio photographer? I think it would have been about 10% of what I actually received.




This is my opinion

Free Market, the old are set in their ways and the new emerging competitors are winning business… This has happen since the early days of trading. There are several different factors involved with all types of services and retail sales and what motivates a buyer to choose what they do.

High end photographers who have years of experience and years of holding a monopoly in the photography business (until digital cameras) have been faced with actually having to dive into the business end of the photography and learn about business as the younger, more recently educated, and more willing to do what they have to do to make a living in photography.

When the “professional photographer” makes the argument about their years of service, experience, and whatever else being the justification as to why they charge the prices they do does not hold to much weight with me. There is more involved in what they make as a fee than their presence. This is the arrogance of some that choose to think this way and then bash others who charge a percentage of what they do. Their location, their experience, their products, their attitude, their word of mouth advertising, their advertising, the local economy, their locals demographic and population etc. etc. etc. All this plays a role into their success and their ability to charge the fees they do.

When someone complains about all the new, under experienced, under skilled, and whatever else they wish to add into the complaint, I just see this as their realization that now they will have to work harder, book more sessions, give a little better service, go the extra mile, and so on, to keep their current income/lifestyle.

I never plan to become a full time photographer as I don’t want my passion to become my source of primary income and turn into something I am forced to do. The market is unstable and subject to fall and rise of the economy which is another reason I choose to keep it an additional source of income rather than my primary.

The world is changing and the past will stay in the past, the future is unknown, but we live in the today which is the reason they call it the present.