$3000 for a professional photographer isn't expensive.
A photographer doesn't just “...hang out at a wedding taking tons of photos and editing them...” Otherwise the couple can just give a kid a camera and at the end of the day pay him or her a few dollasr to edit them on photoshop.
A wedding photographer have to know where to stand, how many batteries would last, ready all the time; and of course it involves much preparation and has good people skill.
It's also vital that the photographer can direct people on different poses, as wedding photo isn't quite the same as sport shooting.
And like mentioned in the link, poor response as it is, there is the price of camera gears. What I don't see is the cost of insurance.
There is a way to pay cheaper than pro-photog, but the couple have to find one of the semi-pro.
Personally, I have done some part time weddings. I can beat that price.
At the beginning it was for the challenge but the more you are into it, it becomes very tiring routine which you can't lose concentratoin. Given the choice I'd rather do sports.
Where am I going with this post? Well... some jokes aside, I'd say if you want a professional photographer then $3000 is reasonable providing you are happy with their port folio.
Last edited by tim11; 01-29-2012 at 02:25 PM.
Nikon D90, D80
Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB