Wedding Pics - a cautionary tale!

BooBear

BooBear

Messages
391
Name
Becky
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
This thread is not aimed at anyone in particular, but given how often credit crunch wedding photography seems to come up, I thought I would share my experience with you.

I got married a couple of years ago. We wanted something very low-key. We are also students at the time so didn't have a big budget to blow. I was horrified when I saw how much wedding photographers cost so resigned myself to asking for copies of photos taken by family/friends. Then my mum found a friend's husband, who was "a photographer", who agreed to come and shoot for an hour or so and provide me with about 20 photos, all for about £200 (our wedding was SMALL - this was 10% of the overall cost!). When I talked to him beforehand he proudly told me he had just bought an "all singing, all dancing digital SLR". I jumped at the offer.

Can you see where this is going?!

It turned out he hadn't quite worked out how to use his DSLR, having always shot on film previously. There were some hilarious photos - people pulling strange faces because they heard a beep from the camera and thought the photo had been taken when it was in fact the autofocus beeping. So lots of photos of people turning around and walking away from formals. Also, he paid no attention to what was in the background, which made for some odd photos too. In the group photos people were wearing sunglasses (something I have always noticed pro-togs preventing from happening), and not one photo of me and my beloved that I wanted to frame.

What is sad about all this is that if we'd had no photographer at all, I'm sure family/friends would have made more of an effort to take good portraits for us to make up for it.

Fortunately, neither my husband or I are deeply upset by this. If the photographs had been that important to us at the time, I guess we would have found the money to pay for a proper photographer, and we knew we were taking a risk. In fact good things have come out of it - when I saw the photos, I thought to myself "I could do better than that" - bought myself DSLR and have been doing evening classes in photography ever since. Friends have since asked me to photograph their weddings but the answer will be no for a long, long time to come!

Just thought I'd share. Wish I could post some of them here for you (but of course I can't, and wouldn't anyway) because they are so bad they are FUNNY!:lol:
 
Come on...!! Play the game.. Show us a couple of pics.

Not always, but shows you get what you pay for.

I'm glad some good has come out of this for you. Good luck with your course/classes.
 
I bet there are hundreds of stories similar to yours about bad wedding photographers, unfortunately not all the bad ones charge as little as £200. I've seen some work from long estabilished photographers charging a lot of money where I have thought "I can do better than that". They say you get what you pay for but that's not necessarily true. I think more than looking at the amount you get charged, you need to look at the photographers portfolio and see if you are happy with what they are capable of producing. If the B&G haven't checked out the previous with of their tog then they are taking a risk whether they are paying £200 or £2,000.

Good luck with your photography course. I hope you go on to be an acomplished photographer and make B&G's of the future very happy.
 
John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
“There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person’s lawful prey.
It is unwise to pay too much, but it is also unwise to pay too little.
When you pay too much, you lose a little money, that is all.
When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything because the thing you bought is incapable of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot…
It can’t be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder it is well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
 
Sad and not a rare occurrence at all - you might like to think about this as an idea for a future anniversary when you've some spare pennies

I have an interesting booking for next year, it's a 'Wedding' shoot of a couple that were actually married 30 years ago !!!

There Pro tog's results were so bad they actually binned them :eek: They couldn't afford what was the then going rate, and managed to find a total plonker instead

Their now grown up family are paying for the shoot as a 30th anniversary present, and we're doing it at the same venue and same park as on the original day :)

DD
 
What a lovely idea, DD. Will definitely consider it for an anniversary, while I can still fit into the dress!
 
BooBear said:
What a lovely idea, DD. Will definitely consider it for an anniversary, while I can still fit into the dress!
Click to expand...

While the 'bride' can still fit into her dress, the 'groom' most definitely couldn't fit into his suit :lol:

A wide lens will be needed now for portraits of just the two of them :D

DD
 
Me and my wife don't really like our wedding photos, we got married in Vegas and the guy would only shoot one film (it was 2001). We were smiling until our faces hurt and he said we wern't smiling enough :lol: We asked for lots of group shots with all our family and friends who had come with us, we got 2! The video is a good reminder though :)
 
A friend of mine received a call form a bride-to-be last year, the conversation went like this:
BTB) "We are getting married and a friend has offered to take the official photos with his camera-phone - it's got lots of megapixels - and we will probably go with this option, but we wondered how much a professional would charge anyway?"
TOG) (personally, at this point, I'd have advised her to go for her friends option rather than waste any time) "Well, my wedding packages start at £700 and for that you would get etc. etc."
BTB)"Oh, thanks, but I think we'll just get our friend to do it" (now THERE'S a bl00dy big surprise, eh?!)
Now, two things scare me about this call:
1) Some lunatic thinks it's okay to take someones wedding shots - the ones their children and grandchildren will see - with a PHONE?!
2) Two other lunatics are going to let him!

This message was not brought to you by Nokia, Sony, Samsung or Blackberry ;)
 
If the light's good, you could actually get some quite nice snaps off a recent SE cameraphone.

Not that I'd reccomend you shoot a wedding on one :)
 
When I got married seven years ago, it was before I had any interest in photography. There was no way we were going to pay the outrageous :) fees of a professional, so we paid a family friend who was a 'photographer' £300 to do it.

I think he shot around 10 rolls of film, mostly rubbish, and around a third of the photos were of one of our female guest who he'd obviously taken a shine to. I had just bought my first SLR to take on honeymoon and came back with better shots.

On the bright side, the shocking mess that were our wedding photos gave me a very good template of how not to do it when I started the business a couple of years later.
 
KSG Photography said:
A friend of mine received a call form a bride-to-be last year, the conversation went like this:
BTB) "We are getting married and a friend has offered to take the official photos with his camera-phone - it's got lots of megapixels - and we will probably go with this option, but we wondered how much a professional would charge anyway?"
TOG) (personally, at this point, I'd have advised her to go for her friends option rather than waste any time) "Well, my wedding packages start at £700 and for that you would get etc. etc."
BTB)"Oh, thanks, but I think we'll just get our friend to do it" (now THERE'S a bl00dy big surprise, eh?!)
Now, two things scare me about this call:
1) Some lunatic thinks it's okay to take someones wedding shots - the ones their children and grandchildren will see - with a PHONE?!
2) Two other lunatics are going to let him!

This message was not brought to you by Nokia, Sony, Samsung or Blackberry ;)
Click to expand...



Facebook wedding album anyone?
 
You pay peanuts you get monkeys! (as the saying goes) Sorry but thats often the case, yes you do get a few expensive rubbish togs, but they tend to be few and far between. But your a heck of a lot more lightly to get a cheap rubbish one.
The reason many people can charge good money is because they have been around a while and do the job properly, somebody cheap is usually starting up, this means they might not have all the gear, and they might not have much or any experience.
I'm sorry you were unlucky, at least you have taken it well (and credit to you for that) maybe your tale will act as a warning to others. Wayne
 
There is no law that says you have to document your wedding with pictures. People were happily getting married for many years before photography was invented.

Sometimes couples get married with no budget at all so in these cases, any photographer is better than no photographer and if you get some good images then this is an added bonus.


Steve.
 
I got asked to do a wedding recently. friend of the girlfriend...obviously cost is everything.
I bravely offered to take photos at the wedding (candids or some nice shots) and give them copies of everything they wanted, but taking professional wedding photos???
not a chance. I recommended finding a pro.
no experience, no backup of equipment, no lighting gear
I still like the kid that watches the techy repair the burglar alarm.
will try to learn what I can from the pro but wouldn't want to think I was one.

Maybe I should have though....Mmmmm,. My LG Renoir has an 8MP camera on it....WOOF!
 
While i agree with everything being posted, and believe me im not trying to have a go at pro wedding photographers, are they not a tad expensive.

I mean in todays economy who really can afford to spend upwards of £700? That could be put behind a bar and get the complete party afterwards having a very merry time.

And is that kinda price good value for money?

If i had the choice (not getting married soon), i'd much rather give a few amateurs a bit of cash each, free beer at the party and a **** load of memory cards just to snap away non stop. This was your at least gauranteed a good few pics, its not like the pro gives you everything he has taken.

Christ for the money some are charging you could buy the camera,and go on a course.

Just my two pence worth anyway.
 
I don't do weddings BUT I do know there are huge costs in running any photographic business. A wedding probably accounts for 3 - 4 days time to start with - plus equipment/back-up/insurance/assistant/rates/telephone/fuel/cars/pension/etc/etc. Funny how many people can afford the dress/catering/cake/honeymoon/cars but not the photography! Because you can buy the camera for £700 doesn't mean you have the skill to use it. I would guess most pros camera gear used at a wedding costs a LOT more than that anyway. My own kit is more like 20 times that figure!
 
TheCrow said:
While i agree with everything being posted, and believe me im not trying to have a go at pro wedding photographers, are they not a tad expensive.

I mean in todays economy who really can afford to spend upwards of £700? That could be put behind a bar and get the complete party afterwards having a very merry time.

And is that kinda price good value for money?

If i had the choice (not getting married soon), i'd much rather give a few amateurs a bit of cash each, free beer at the party and a **** load of memory cards just to snap away non stop. This was your at least gauranteed a good few pics, its not like the pro gives you everything he has taken.

Christ for the money some are charging you could buy the camera,and go on a course.

Just my two pence worth anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes pros can be very expensive, but theres top quality gear and back-ups to buy (not cheap) premises, insurance, a reliable car, good proper software (not pirate) advertising, wedding fayres, phone bills, camera and len services, paper, ink, tax, etc etc etc. And thats before we get to pay staff a wage.
£700 doesn't go far then.
 
I almost have a similar story. A friend at work asked me to do his wedding when I had just started branching out in this field. He was happy to pay me. However I already had a wedding booked that day and had to turn him down.

Then up popped his "friend" with a 6Mp (large at the time) compact that he just bought.

The images of the day were a disaster!! the friend didn't know how to use it and the flash was off all day resulting in very blurry images. i couldn't work out what he's done..... Even the outdoor ones were poor.

My friend sent me the disk asking me to see if I could edit any but alas they were so bad nothing I could do would rescue any......

I'm with the band who thought weddings were a rip off - until that is I started doing them!!

Wayne is quite right. Tax, software, equipment (inc backups), computer equipment, assistants, phone bills, insurance, car, did I say equipment), web site etc etc etc.....
I have spent thousands - (way into 5 figures) in setting up my business and I've still some way to go - all without premises!!

£700 does not go far at all for those loking to make a living from it!
 
At my wedding, 2 years ago, we didn't have an official photographer but we got copies of all the pics that guests took and I selected and printed the ones we liked. Once all the family and friends had seen it, the album has been in the cupboard unlooked at - not because there's a lack of quality but because we've seen them all a hundred times! I'm sure there are couple who sit and look at their album on a regular basis but I KNOW there are plenty of pics ripped out of albums with the bride or groom ripped out/drawn over as well as plenty of albums that have ended up in the bin or bonfire when the marriage has gone boobies up.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Yes pros can be very expensive, but theres top quality gear and back-ups to buy (not cheap) premises, insurance, a reliable car, good proper software (not pirate) advertising, wedding fayres, phone bills, camera and len services, paper, ink, tax, etc etc etc. And thats before we get to pay staff a wage.
£700 doesn't go far then.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with what your saying. And can see why it this subject annoys photographers.

It's just a shame the way things are going. Photography is getting ever more expensivem yet people are wanting things cheaper and cheaper. Which in turn amazes me how many people venture into the world of becomming a pro tog.
 
TheCrow said:
I totally agree with what your saying. And can see why it this subject annoys photographers.

It's just a shame the way things are going. Photography is getting ever more expensivem yet people are wanting things cheaper and cheaper. Which in turn amazes me how many people venture into the world of becomming a pro tog.
Click to expand...

It's the glamour, the big money, the new Porsche, the beautifull girl on our arm..... errr come to think of it thats banking not wedding photography. It must be the Reliant Robin then?
 
TheCrow said:
While i agree with everything being posted, and believe me im not trying to have a go at pro wedding photographers, are they not a tad expensive.

I mean in todays economy who really can afford to spend upwards of £700?

That could be put behind a bar and get the complete party afterwards having a very merry time/QUOTE]

Talking as a newly wed wedding photographer I have to disagree. I cant live on £700 a week, once I have paid for products, tax, NI, Insurance, Advertising, Car, Equipement (endless list). 1 days wedding is a full weeks work, when you take into account the post processing, the album making, the many apointments, the wedding fayres etc. etc. Remember if you are self employed, you fund your own holidays (no pay) etc. etc.

A real professional photographer, with the experience, the gear, and the time to do the job properly is worth 3 times that figure in turnover

BTW - after seeing brides turn up in expensive limo's (seen by no one) and knowing that £700 goes nowhere behind the bar, I think £700 is extrordainary good value, especially considering that once the booze has been drunk, nothing is left except headaches and memories
Click to expand...
 
Richard King said:
once the booze has been drunk, nothing is left except headaches and memories
Click to expand...

There's the flaw in your argument m8 - after a real good sess - who remembers anything at all ???

"Married?!?!?!?! You've got to be joking:bang::bang::bang:" must have been said more than once

:D

DD
 
TheCrow said:
While i agree with everything being posted, and believe me im not trying to have a go at pro wedding photographers, are they not a tad expensive.
Click to expand...

As a wedding photographer of some 25+ years I have to say what a load of c**p.

Firstly the OP will probably say (in hindsight) £700 would be money well spent on a pro. As other posters have also stated using just someone with a camera (or phone and that really scares me!) usually ends in disappointment.

In some area's you probably wouldn't get anyone for £700 anyway but to say that is over priced is really just talking out of your hat. Just look at running costs such as insurance, (equipment, public liability,indemnity and how many uncle Bob's will have that should anything go wrong)car and running costs, time spent shooting the wedding, time spent editing the images.Preparing proofs (either hard copy,DVD or cost of webspace and gallery software if on line, cost of prints and album. Then we have tax & NI and I've not mentioned equipment purchases.

At the end of the day the cars or gone, the church has opened its doors to marry someone else. The beer has been drunk and food eaten. Suites have gone back to the hire shop and the wedding dress is at the cleaners. Where is your value for money? Its with all the memories of the day your wedding album, the one thing you try to do without or on the cheap.

On behalf of every (decent) professional wedding photographer I make no appology if anyone is offended by anything I've said.
 
snapzz, I do agree and with a lot of things you do get what you pay for. In 2001 our wedding photographer cost near £1000. Personally I still see it as money well spent as the photos are great, the photographer was brilliant and both me and the Mrs still look at the album and have some photos on the wall. There are as you rightly say, loads more costs and effort to take into account.

Later this year will be the first wedding that I photograph as the main photographer and I'm already getting nervous! Its for a work friend and although I've taken some good photos at other weddings its the process of posing people that I'm uncomfortable about.

Here's hoping the day goes ok!
 
It's human nature to think that everything and everyone else is overpriced whilst you are underpaid.

I don't think £700* is a bad price to pay for professional wedding photography but some people don't have that amount available for the whole wedding, never mind just for some photographs.

Obviously it's nice to have a good album of memories but if you don't, it's not the end of the world.

I have just reminded myself that I was the only 'photographer' at my aunt's wedding. I was ten years old with an Agfa Isolette. Every picture I took had the subjects' heads cut off at the top of the frame!

(* where did that figure come from?)


Steve.
 
Is this not about perceived value?? A pro tog thinks they're worth the money they charge - it's not for me to judge whether they personally are or not, if people are paying it then fair dos whether its £5 or £5k. The marrieds will either agree or disagree that pics of the day are worth paying £x much for, hence they'll pick their tog on price or their folio depending on the budget of their big day.

From a personal perspective I had a pro tog for my civil partnership who was reasonably priced compared to some I'd seen and seemed to have a decent amount and quality of work to display before we committed to booking. As it turns out some of the pics weren't all that great but the memories of the day were pretty much captured and we had the album done and that was that.

I personally couldn't have justified spending thousands of pounds as much as I would have loved to if money was no object - we had a low key affair and, as is commonplace, there's no parents bankrolling the majority of civil partnerships, hence whatever we wanted we had to fund ourselves.

Now that's not to say that if I'd had some of the togs I saw at up to 5-7 times the price to do the photos that they wouldn't have been better posed or better pp'd or whatever but it was still the day we got hitched, truly the happiest day of my life and there's some decent enough images of the day to remember it by but to me, they're not the be all and end all of our ceremony (if that makes sense!?).

I think that to some people paying £2k ish for someone to take pictures of a wedding and produce an album seems a lot, to a lot of people £2k is still a lot of money for anything. In wedding terms it might not be but surely it's everyone's right to think what they want about it? It's ok not to pay a lot as long as you don't expect a lot I suppose. Having seen a friends photos from a tog that charged a hell of a lot more money than mine did has certainly changed my view of my photos over time.

Anyway, the closing gist of my ramble is - I think - that £250k for a Ferrari F40 is tantamount to daylight robbery to me yet a friend would hock his wife and kids for one - its all down to the dreaded cliche of horses for courses I suppose!

<<<< off to locate tin hat now :thinking:
 
TheCrow said:
While i agree with everything being posted, and believe me im not trying to have a go at pro wedding photographers, are they not a tad expensive.

I mean in todays economy who really can afford to spend upwards of £700? That could be put behind a bar and get the complete party afterwards having a very merry time.
Click to expand...

'At the end of the day, good art is still an expensive, labor-intensive, pain-in-the-ass thing to make. Technology may remove a specific barrier to entry - the way photography did to portraiture over oil paint, for example - but the good stuff, the stuff people are willing to pay BIG MONEY for, still remains really, really hard.'

http://lateralaction.com/articles/hugh-macleod/
 
snapzz;1520725 In some area's you probably wouldn't get anyone for £700 anyway but to say that is over priced is really just talking out of your hat. [/QUOTE said:
I understand what your saying, and while i kinda agree with you, i don't feel some of the prices wedding togs charge are justifiable.

With the price of kit nowadays there are millions of amateurs out there more than capable of capturing excellent images. I would of thought with the amount of up and coming pros about this would force others to lower their prices to be a bit more competitive.

I know you say about the running costs, etc. But i would love to see exactly what sort of profits wedding togs make. I imagine they would shock a lot of people.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know where the £700 figure came from either

But £700 for a day's work is good money

Provided you do it often, and certainly more than once a week

Decent (not top quality) albums & prints to go in them cost £200-£300 to the tog, forgetting all other costs & tax that's now already down to £400 pwk. But relatively few do 52 Weddings per year

£400 pwk is before all associated costs, so allowing for those that's probably £300 pwk gross

So now we're down to less than £15,000 pa before tax for NO days off at all and a 52 week year

Who the flying fk is going to do 52 Weddings a year for less than my local bin-man earns? AND purport to offering a 'professional' service based on years of experience and many thousands of £s in equipment ???

Many hobbiests on here earn more than double that, some are open about the fact they earn much more than double that

One of my neighbours is a couple of council workers, between them they earn almost £70k. They are home every day at 6pm and never work a weekend, they get over 6 weeks a year paid holiday and 2/3rds pension schemes; if they 'need' a day off they throw a sicky - no-one cares

To make that sort of free cash a Wedding tog would need to turnover well in excess of £100,000 pa - it rarely happens

We deal with some of the most important days of two people's lives, we live for the fun & enjoyment that gives. We constantly strive to be better, and most work well in excess of 37 hours a week for a living. We're much more than simply photographers having to be salesmen, book-keepers, admin staff, etc. all by ourselves mostly. It's often a lonely job as everyone most local to us is effectively a competitor, and it's unusual to be pals with the chap robbing your family of income

We love our photography - that's why we do it - if we can earn a living from it, let alone a good living from it, we're usually happy at that

£700 is FA for what most Pros offer compared to uncle Dan and his new DSLR or mobile phone

If you work all week and earn £700 sometimes on a Saturday, then yes it's a good amount of money, but being a full-time Pro is a whole world away from that

I doubt I'll ever buy a Porsche or holiday in the Bahamas - but I love what I do, and I wouldn't have it any other way

:)

DD
 
TheCrow said:
I understand what your saying, and while i kinda agree with you, i don't feel some of the prices wedding togs charge are justifiable.
Click to expand...

Whether you do or not is irrelevant. It's whether they can consistently book at those prices. If they can, the market determines those prices to be justified.

TheCrow said:
With the price of kit nowadays there are millions of amateurs out there more than capable of capturing excellent images. I would of thought with the amount of up and coming pros about this would force others to lower their prices to be a bit more competitive.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that kit = good photographer. If you ate at The Fat Duck would you tell Heston he must have good pans?

TheCrow said:
I know you say about the running costs, etc. But i would love to see exactly what sort of profits wedding togs make. I imagine they would shock a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I imagine you'd be surprised yourself.

It seems to me that you've attacked a market you have no experience of, or any understanding of the commitment and expertise required to deliver to the standard expected of you every week, then picked a £700 figure out of mid-air and decided, apropos of nothing, that the figure is not justifiable. You suggest that we should lower our prices for no reason other than some other people might fancy a crack at it (and good luck to them).

And here's a thing - why is making a profit in a business considered a bad thing when it's to do with wedding photographers?
 
TheCrow said:
I understand what your saying, and while i kinda agree with you, i don't feel some of the prices wedding togs charge are justifiable.

With the price of kit nowadays there are millions of amateurs out there more than capable of capturing excellent images. I would of thought with the amount of up and coming pros about this would force others to lower their prices to be a bit more competitive.

I know you say about the running costs, etc. But i would love to see exactly what sort of profits wedding togs make. I imagine they would shock a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Photographing a wedding and producing consistant good quality results requires more than just capturing excelent images. Theres a lot more to it than that, managing a 150+ people, working under pressure, dealing with tricky lighting or weather. You have to be a photographer, minder, safety officer, organiser, dresser, mediator, and on occasions first aider, plus heaven knows what else.

Spending an hour to get a great landscape shot is a lot different to shooting a 1000 pics in the pouring rain, with a 150 drunks (some of who want to fight each other) and a hotel manager trying to rush you so he can send the staff home sooner and save money.
Been there done it got the tee shirt, I also got the pics!, money well earned I say. Wayne
 
I think your all getting a bit carried away. All im doing is putting over my opinion.

At the end of the day just because i think the whole wedding photography thing is expensive doesn't mean everyone does. And i am glad your educating me into how much the running costs are, etc.

Thanks Radiohead for explaining clearer.

But all the time you wedding togs gang up together and slate and attack anyone who has an opinion you just look more guilty of being criminal in the amount you charge.

I think everyone needs to take a chill pill and maybe have this thread closed because as usual it has been taken out of contex and everyone has got a bit carried away.

And for all you wedding togs, its not me you have to convince but the people getting married. Good luck!
 
Now you're calling us criminal. Where do you get off with a comment like that?

It's nothing to do with ganging up. It's replying to someone with an axe to grind in the seemingly unending digs at the pros that use this forum. And frankly I'm sick of it.
 
TheCrow said:
I understand what your saying, and while i kinda agree with you, i don't feel some of the prices wedding togs charge are justifiable.

With the price of kit nowadays there are millions of amateurs out there more than capable of capturing excellent images. I would of thought with the amount of up and coming pros about this would force others to lower their prices to be a bit more competitive.

I know you say about the running costs, etc. But i would love to see exactly what sort of profits wedding togs make. I imagine they would shock a lot of people.
Click to expand...

If I go to your website, I see you'll charge me £10 for a 10x8 print. That's pretty reasonable, even though of course the cost of the print is much less than that.

Let's say I go to a wedding and deliver 400 prints to the clients. Even if I charge them a couple of grand for the privilege, that still works out at £5 a print (9x6 in my case). Makes your prints look a tad pricey. Maybe you should think about lowering your price to make yourself more competitive ?

Of course photographers make profit, that profit is their income. And just as any person in a salaried job, they want as much income as they can get for the job they do.

The point of being in business is not to provide goods at the cheapest price possible, but to maximise profit. If they price themselves too highly for the service they offer then people will not buy.
 
TheCrow said:
But i would love to see exactly what sort of profits wedding togs make. I imagine they would shock a lot of people.
Click to expand...

No offence meant by what I am about to say (write), but what the h3ll does it have to do with you, or anyone else how much profit a professional makes? What about pro footballers? a few training sessions a week, sit on the sub bench for half the game then pop on, knock a ball about (yes, I know there's a bit more skill involved than that) for 45 mins or so and magically £20k+ appears in yer bank every week! What about their profits? What about supermarkets? Car manufacturers? Chocolate companies? Hair product companies? Condom companies? (yes, believe it or not, they are not in business just to stop you getting in the family way - surprising, isn't it?) At the end of the day, every business is - or should be - driven by one goal: To make a profit. How much is entirely up to the owner/s and if they can make the profit margin (after all the costs mentioned by previous posters) they want then good luck to them. Whilst I do not cover a lot of weddings, I fully support anyone who offers a service at a reasonable price in order to make a profit, whether that's wedding photography, dog-walking or selling condoms ;)

Profit - it's not a dirty word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top