? about wedding photography price

[TylerGS]

A friend wants to hire me to be a secondary photographer at his wedding. I have zero experience in wedding photography, but will be working under the guidance of a more experienced photographer. I will not, however, be working for the other photographer, so I have to come up with my own price. I have a Nikon D40 and will be buying a Nikkor 50 mill f/1.8 lens for the shoot. I might be able to borrow a Nikon D700 with the kit lens and external flash from some friends. That being said, what should I charge for my work? I don't want to charge too much since I have no experience and will only be working as second photographer, but I don't want to charge too little and hurt the wedding photography market. What should I do?

[FrankLamont]

Hang on - does the primary photographer know of this?

Normally secondary photogs are hired by the photographer themselves.

[i speak in math]

I'm gonna agree with the delicious Fried Chicken. Many photographers include a clause that say they will be the only photographer in their contract. You don't someone stepping in the way of your shots. He is hired to get his shots, and with someone else there doing the same thing, there is only going to be trouble.

Work it out with the hired photog first. Maybe you can get paid through him as the second.

[TylerGS]

Yes he knows. Basically the only thing he wants is for one of us to be in charge, and since he has the experience it is a no-brainer as to who that is.

Okay. I'll get in contact with the fist photog and see what he can do. Thanks for the advise!

[Stina3246]

Originally Posted by TylerGS

Yes he knows. Basically the only thing he wants is for one of us to be in charge, and since he has the experience it is a no-brainer as to who that is.

Okay. I'll get in contact with the fist photog and see what he can do. Thanks for the advise!

I started out doing wedding photography as a secondary working FOR the primary photographer. For our first wedding together he only paid me $100 (I had to drive 2 hours to the location and stayed 14 hours) BUT he gave me rights to all my photos & gave me credit for the ones he used on his website. I didn't have to worry about doing ANY editing either, I just shot and then gave him my disks. The experience and training I got from him was worth FAR more then the money I would have made had I been shooting the wedding as the primary plus I knew that even if I messed up he was there getting the "good" shots. I gained so much confidence shooting with him (we've done quite a few together now) that I can do it on my own. I may be WAY off base here and some one PLEASE correct me if I am but I'd say $100-200 is good based on your experience and the fact that they already have a primary. You are mainly there to get the stuff he may miss. (and you are a friend)
I'm just guessing at this price because I have NO idea how much the Primary photog is getting, my partner makes $1500-2,000 a wedding.

[PierreC]

First off, you do not seem to even have the right gear, or any appropriate gear to shoot a wedding....

Get on board with the real photographer, since it looks as if he was ok with that, and just learn and shoot a little. After assisting 10, 15 times, you will know what gear you need, how to use it instinctively, and you can start shooting as a second or 3rd photographer.

And depending on how good you are at this, and how much you like it, and if you even like it, then at some point, you might do it on your own.

As far as money goes, if I were you, I would not ask for any money, because you really are not worth any, no offense.

Good luck.

A photographer with over 285 weddings under his belt!

[bardman]

Originally Posted by PierreC

First off, you do not seem to even have the right gear, or any appropriate gear to shoot a wedding....

Get on board with the real photographer, since it looks as if he was ok with that, and just learn and shoot a little. After assisting 10, 15 times, you will know what gear you need, how to use it instinctively, and you can start shooting as a second or 3rd photographer.

And depending on how good you are at this, and how much you like it, and if you even like it, then at some point, you might do it on your own.

As far as money goes, if I were you, I would not ask for any money, because you really are not worth any, no offense.

Good luck.

A photographer with over 285 weddings under his belt!

I agree mostly with the above, except the "you really are not wroth any, no offense". Well, that's actually offensive and unnecessary. You may end up taking some great pix which really round off the main photog's work. Still, I would see it as an opportunity to take some pix and learn from the other guy and build your portfolio. So, I wouldn't charge him. That's my two cents. Have fun.

[Brian Mullins]

As was already said above, this is indeed a bit unusual that you are being hired outside of the "primary photographers" contract. Let me explain why:

1 - You are both being paid to deliver a product. It doesn't matter if one of you are in charge, you still both have to deliver and the end product will suffer.

2 - You will be delivering a disjointed product. In other words, you may both give them 10 shots of the cake but neither of you spent time with the Mother of the Groom, so neither of you got anything of her.

3 - You will get in each others way. It happens... but as you are both being paid it will be more difficult to work with each other.

As this is your first wedding, you will be playing catch up most of the day. Sorry, that's just "usual" when you first start weddings. They move very fast and you must always be a step ahead (where should you stand for the processional, the kiss, the ring exchange). Since you usually can't move around alot during the ceremony, you really need to have this mapped out to begin with. Also, since the primary photographer is being paid already, he will have probably have little compunction to help you out.

Most pro wedding photographers do have a "exclusive professional photographer" clause in their contract for many of the above reasons. This would be a much, much easier task if you could get "hired" under the primary. Your gear is minimal right now and I doubt you havce any type of insurance should something happen. I'm all for people getting their feet wet in wedding photography but, to be completely honest, this is a very risky way of doing it (I'd rather see you shoot one, alone, pro bono then to add a 2nd photographer into the mix).

[TylerGS]

Thanks for the advice everyone!

From my understanding the other photog is also somewhat of an amateur, just with a lot more experience in weddings. The goal of the groom in hiring both of us to work together independently is to keep his expenses down. As for me, I only want this job so I can get the experience I need and to work under someone else with experience, so I will keep my price down as low as possible (just charge enough to cover my very basic expenses).

The reason the other photog wants one of us be in charge is so that we "avoid awkward or redundant duplication of work." From my understanding even though we will be working separate, we'll be working together.

I just went back and read the email from the groom. He said that the other photog wants to work with someone else, so I don't think there will be any danger of him not helping me along when necessary. I still need to get in touch with the other photog to ask some questions and get to know him.

[GadgetRick]

Originally Posted by TylerGS

Thanks for the advice everyone!

From my understanding the other photog is also somewhat of an amateur, just with a lot more experience in weddings. The goal of the groom in hiring both of us to work together independently is to keep his expenses down. As for me, I only want this job so I can get the experience I need and to work under someone else with experience, so I will keep my price down as low as possible (just charge enough to cover my very basic expenses).

The reason the other photog wants one of us be in charge is so that we "avoid awkward or redundant duplication of work." From my understanding even though we will be working separate, we'll be working together.

I just went back and read the email from the groom. He said that the other photog wants to work with someone else, so I don't think there will be any danger of him not helping me along when necessary. I still need to get in touch with the other photog to ask some questions and get to know him.

Sorry but this is making less and less sense. How is hiring two (separate) photogs going to keep expenses down? Also, this will cause, "awkward or redundant duplication of work," not help avoid it.

I'd suggest a sit down with the photog and the bride/groom and just get you all on the same page. You're being set up for failure if you ask me. You can't win in the situation you've been proposed at the moment.