I turned just enough profit to make it work for me. I did it for the art, and to see couples that were happy with my work.
Charging more than I did is fine, but some of those guys are overcharging to take advantage of special occasions. That's why I provided them with the negatives. The event would seem a bit less special if I kept the copyright and made them go through me for additional prints.
And no disposables for me. Only Nikon SLRs and digital SLRs. I shot with an old F-3 for a long time, then I got a Nikon D1X. Now I just do photography for myself with my tried and true D-100.
If I were to make a general assumption based off my experience dealing with freelance photographers that may or may not apply to the ones you're talking about, the reason behind that $2000 price tag is that if they are a Nikon user they're rocking a D7000 or D800, or a 7D or 5D if they're a Canon user. Account for a nice flash, at least 3 lenses with great glass (what Canon photographer's bag doesn't have at least 70-200mm 2.8/f L and a few wider primes?), and some additional lighting and you're talking about $3000-$5000 worth of gear already. Now I of course know that the fancy equipment doesn't magically make quality work, but like you said, the market is saturated with amateurs and the only way to put yourself ahead without extensive previous work is the best equipment. That's how I look at it rather than overcharging for an occasion. If I show up at your wedding with $5000 worth of gear that I know how to produce the best possible images with, you can sure as **** bet my price is starting at $2000 and that may not include wallet sizes and a poster.
Then again, I don't take pictures at weddings so what do I know. I contract with a wedding/mitzvah video company, but they're high end and charge so much that I can't even argue for it. :p --- i7-950 3.4GHz | GeForce GTX 285 | 16 GB DDR3 | NEC 2490WUXi 1920x1200 glory of power metal is an anagram of Lame Flowerpot Orgy. ~ kirbymuncher
as a form of artistic expression, photography is my least favorite. but as a way of conveying information, photography is really useful, even though photos often lack context. I also don't really like looking at pictures, for some reason
so, I'll have to go with - gaming. even though many games are generic and uninspired, I like to imagine the possible interactivity and imagination that they can possess --- http://imgur.com/AMN4G.gif
As a writer and a drawer/illustrator, I can appreciate photography, but I've never tried to get into it.
I can tell that it's hard because of aspects such as lighting and distance. I could only imagine that there's much more that goes into it. Hell, it's the reason why some people and myself included aren't satisfied after taking a photo of something just once. I like to take multiple shots until I feel that the photo feels just right.
Therefore, despite my appreciation for photography, I'll choose games. If the question were the same, but it had writing/music as opposed to Photography, I would've chosen those two instead. --- "Life is a mistake that only art can correct."