I saw this over on f-stoppers last night:

http://fstoppers.com/why-bad-wedding...ndustry-better

I thought it was an interesting perspective. I'm not entirely sure if I agree or not. I can see it from both sides.

Good read..
I'm not sure that I completely agree.
Some people WILL want cheaper photographers...

Frankly the photos look tacky and cheap

Originally Posted by karloznz Frankly the photos look tacky and cheap

I do believe that is the point of the article. But then again my sarcasm meter has been busted for a while now...

=Matt=

I agree that you get what you pay for and yes everyone needs to start somewhere (our first wedding was free and the next five were between 250-550 which was 4 years ago) but explaining that you're just starting out or your a shoot and burn is what some "Craigslist" photographers fail to mention. I also don't fully support the gear talk of needing 5 cameras for a wedding day and two assistants. One assistant, 2 cameras and backup gear left in the vehicle IMO are sufficient and it's how you use your gear not the cost of the gear. I've seen photographers win contests with images shot on point and shoots and they were amazing images. Just my two cents:)

I agree with almost everything is said on there.

A fun little tidbit - I shared this article of my FB.. and a couple of people chimed in, saying that they liked some of the shots in that article..

WOW those pictures are amazing! I literally gasped when I saw the first one! Hahaha :)

I fundamentally agree with the author - someone who is in the market for a Kia is not going to also shop at the Bentley dealer. These cars are for two completely different customers with different wants/needs.

Whether the low-end photog is making the industry better is a bit more of a question, though.

Oh dear god those images were painful to look at! I feel that if a bride did her research and found someone just getting into the wedding industry, she could potentially pick out a photographer that will meet her needs for a cheaper price. A couple of the first weddings I did was for a cheap price ($400 - $500) because I was doing it for the experience. That was more valuable to me than the money itself.

I don't know if I agree that cheap photographers help out the industry. In terms of monetary reasons, they would help brides who can't afford for an expensive photographer. I used to think photographers that charged $3,000 for a wedding were insane, but then after doing my research I realized that in order to run a business you need to charge prices this high. If equipment breaks, you need to be able to replace it. You need insurance. You need money for a website. Oh yeah, and you need to take into the account the cost of living! (mortgage, health insurance, car, food, etc). When being a wedding photographer becomes a full time job, you need to charge what you're worth. Otherwise you will shoot 50+ weddings and burn out by the end of the year.

My two cents.

Originally Posted by Dreadnote I saw this over on f-stoppers last night: http://fstoppers.com/why-bad-wedding...ndustry-better I thought it was an interesting perspective. I'm not entirely sure if I agree or not. I can see it from both sides.

He actually didn't substantiate his claim that bad-wedding photogs have made the Industry better.

What he did substantiate is as Kinkjou said; looking for a Kia and you won't shop at Bentley.

And I take great umbrage with his thoughts in general because apparently he thinks Brides actually learn something and others around them learn something too when a wedding turns bad photographically. I am certain we've all noticed that mediocre is the new superlative. And in fact that observation isn't really new. It's just new in Digital Photography. Mediocre has been the standard in many industries before we got to digital photography.

Originally Posted by Kinkajou ...I fundamentally agree with the author - someone who is in the market for a Kia is not going to also shop at the Bentley dealer. These cars are for two completely different customers with different wants/needs....

Originally Posted by angevin1 He actually didn't substantiate his claim that bad-wedding photogs have made the Industry better. What he did substantiate is as Kinkjou said; looking for a Kia and you won't shop at Bentley. And I take great umbrage with his thoughts in general because apparently he thinks Brides actually learn something and others around them learn something too when a wedding turns bad photographically. I am certain we've all noticed that mediocre is the new superlative. And in fact that observation isn't really new. It's just new in Digital Photography. Mediocre has been the standard in many industries before we got to digital photography.

This is, in my opinion, the dark side of the coin. While I agree that an expanding ocean of bad photos only makes the good ones stand out more, I also believe that a sea of mediocre images can make it harder to discern which ones are truly great.

Heck, in fact many images these days truly ARE great, and still cost a mediocre price. THAT is the problem.

Sure, if you're shopping for a Kia you don't go to the Bentley dealership. But I know a handful of people who thought about buying a Mercedes or BMW, but ended up buying a Hyundai. See what I mean?

The $1,000 wedding photography market doesn't threaten the $10,000 photography market. But the $1,900 wedding photographer (with a decent amount of experience and very good photography) is beginning to evaporate the market of the $3,900 photographer. (With a ton of experience and truly breathtaking images...)

This is, in my opinion, the core of what is causing a huge shift in our industry. Simply put- there is far less room in the industry for full-time photographers in that mid-range price bracket, thanks to an exponentially growing industry of part-time photographers in the medium-low price bracket.

Honestly? I don't care, as long as brides get great images at a fair price. Digital technology has always "destroyed" industries as it revolutionizes them. As the article says, really all that's happening is that things are re-arranging a bit...

=Matt=