but the AD rates are really very expensive. I remember asking chris ling why the AD so expensive, he says he have to spend like more than 2x the time on AD compared to pre-wedding.
From the POV of photography:
1) Uncontrolled venue, versus luxurious choice of venue for pre-weddings.
2) Uncontrolled pacing
3) Very little control over lighting (This is key, as photography is all about light)
4) Split-second decision making often necessary
5) Long hours, often very little break. (I'm still recovering from dehydration from the last wedding.)
6) Unfavourable shooting conditions - clutter, space constraints, people blocking the lens, backlight...
7) Very little time - yes, long hours, yet little time because events are packed back to back
8) Need to be a lot more diplomatic and people-oriented, as subjects are a whole load more
9) Not exactly photography, but for some weddings, wedding photographers need to double-up as advisors for BnG as they're often the one with the most experience in terms of knowing what to do in various situations. This can be distract the photographer from the main job.
10) I can go on actually. But I'll leave it open.
I can also go into why AD photography should be more expensive from the POV of brides and grooms, but that'll sound like a sales pitch when pushed here even if it were sincere.
I would want to shoot a wedding where costs is not an issue. I will set up lights where I want at the various venues, have assistants and additional shooters to control the lights, equipment and manage the flow of events to reduce the loss of photography opportunities. But even at 1k/hr, it's not worth doing that. AD weddings are not 'easy' to shoot, as perceived by so many people, including some of the practitioners who place so little value in their craft. Was it Jerry Ghionis who said 'if you can shoot a wedding well, you can shoot anything'? I can't agree more. I just wish local practitioners would place more value in their craft.