lindsay_dobson

Hi Clare. I'm a full-time pro in England and hopefully I'll add to the excellent advice already given by William. I would strongly advise you not undertake any kind of ‘work’ without at least a basic set of Terms in place, and you are playing with fire if you do not have Liability insurance and in the case of weddings, Professional Indemnity insurance as well. To be effective, a Contract does not need to be written by a legal professional. But it does need to be ‘fair and reasonable’ if tested in a court of law. As has been mentioned, laws can vary in Scotland and I am referring to the laws of England and Wales. Some photographers have fairly basic contracts and others have much fuller terms of business which contain quite detailed pieces of information. I fall into the latter category since I like my clients to be as well informed as possible. It also makes it abundantly easier when questions are raised to simply refer the customer back to ‘Clause xx’. Wedding photography contracts do exist as templates and these are available through the leading long established photography institutions such as the MPA (Master Photographers Association), SWPP (Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers) and the BIPP (British Institute of Professional Photography). I am a Fellow of the latter two and I would recommend anyone starting out as a professional wedding photographer to consider a membership of one of these three bodies. Benefits include a legal helpline and in the case of the SWPP (not sure about the MPA) an active and incredibly helpful members forum which is a minefield of business information and support. It's prudent to cover the following in your Contract/Terms: Booking and Payments (your process for retaining your clients and your payment schedule) your Cancellation policy (this will be linked to the above and will change according to how close to the event your client cancels) Copyright (you retain copyright in all matters, digital files are licensed according to certain usage rights you have assigned, your retaining the right to display your images on your website and other portals) Coverage (what you will be photographing) Creative Licence (you decide what setups are most appropriate rather than the client making those decisions) Client Obligations (such as the information which must be provided to the photographer and any assistance you require on the day) Exclusivity (whether you are to be the only contracted stills photographer on the day) Force Majeur (failure due to situations beyond your control) Complaints Procedure what your clients may do with any digital files provided to them (eg personal use, no right to supply to third parties such as venues etc) Ordering and receipt of goods (timescales, payments) the role of your assistant, if you have one Images (cropping, colour reproduction, number of images provided will vary etc) Limitation of Liability your working hours (‘all day coverage’ or set hours with extra hours charged) Although I’m now almost entirely a portrait photographer my Terms of Business cover all of those things in sufficient detail for the client to have a good plain English understanding of how the photography process works. Your Standard Operating Procedures are your own office documents setting out your process for things like complaints, copyright infringements, dealing with venues etc. Remember there is little point providing a contract if you are not prepared to enforce it should you have to do. Clients do not have the right to rewrite or amend your terms as they see fit. Perhaps the hardest thing for many photographers is the ability to say ‘no’ when pushed - and in wedding photography you will probably be pushed a great deal. There is nothing wrong with reviewing the contracts of other established photographers you know, providing they cover the key points I've mentioned. Most professional wedding photography contracts are very similar. The important thing is to understand how or if the clauses therein apply to your own business and if some of those clauses are even relevant to you. You may even need to add clauses, depending on how you do things. Regarding the laws of England and Wales, and Copyright, there is a wealth of information on my blog (the one with the garland logo) in the For Photographers section, or you can use the search facility.

<p>I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but I will respond to Joe Morris. Joe - when did you last shoot film and digital side-by-side? On a cursory level we can reproduce the look of certain film types, at least to an extent (and whether we feel we have reproduced that on digital will largely depend on our experience with both, and how discerning we are). But whenever I shoot film I am always struck by how different the results are. Of course there are still clients who like the thought of having their wedding committed to film, just as there are many customers out there who will pay a premium to purchase a chair carved using traditional methods, over a mass produced 'equivalent'. Ask any cabinetmaker or antique dealer.</p> <p>And you are very wrong that a photographer's style and working methods are always dictated by their customers. That should never be the case (unless you occupy a market level where creativity is not a requirement). At the higher end of the market or the niche end of the market, that is unworkable. A bride goes to a photographer because the style of that photographer resonates with her particular sense of aesthetic. Then there are brides who simply shop on price. A bride wanting a disc containing 500 images is hardly going to approach a niche film photographer who will be giving her 30 prints hand mounted, and provided in a hand carved box.</p> <p>If a bride comes to me wanting a vintage themed shoot, with faded and tinted processing, then I know I am not the photographer for her. That is not me failing to cater to my customers. Quite the contrary - if you're in business as a photographer you need to understand who your key clients are, and you market your offerings to them. Not the other way round.</p> <p>I know several photographers who routinely produce weddings on film for their customers. They have no shortage of clients, they understand those clients, and they know where to find them. And vice versa. If Daniel fails in his venture, and it has nothing to do with his 'gimmick' and everything to do with his failure to understand and market that sector.</p>

<p>Yes, it's much improved actually, I was quite impressed when I tested it. That said, I hardly ever need to use C-AF. At the end of the day it's about whether it works for you, not anyone else, given what you shoot and how you prefer to do things. If this is the one overriding feature which has to be cutting edge then the newer leading DSLRs geared towards sports shooters will be better - at a massive price and weight premium. I think it might be best for you to just hire the EM1 and the kind of lens you're most likely to favour, and do some testing.</p>

<p>They are beautiful Harold - I especially like the fungi, thanks for posting those links.</p>

<p>The new EM1 firmware (out this week I think) is said to be a major upgrade and improves C-AF.</p>

<p>Hi Mary, for me at least, the switch to micro four thirds for all of my work has been fantastic. I don't feel I have lost out anywhere now that there are some top notch professional grade fast zooms and ultrafast primes available. But we are all different, and you are doing the right thing in appraising your needs before making the switch. </p> <p>Re: tracking focus - it is not (yet) on par with a professional DSLR. I don't bother using it, just as I would very rarely use it on my DSLRs. However it is important to examine how, why, and where tracking focus might be important to <em>you</em>. For example, if most of your work is sports photography or birds in flight, then accurate tracking focus can make your life easier. The overriding feature I need for a lot of my work is very fast and accurate autofocus - the EM1 in particular is blazing in this regard and it will grab pretty much anything. Over the years my habit has usually been to simply ride the shutter button keeping autofocus on my subject and then firing off my frames when I need to - for me at least, this is proving to be as accurate and as intuitive as anything else, and serves me well - but if you've grown used to using tracking focus and if you prefer to use tracking focus most of the time, then you will need to readapt if you do switch to the EM1. I was shooting some catwalk recently with my Canon system, and I'll shoot the odd show with my shutter-button-riding autofocus, and the odd show using continuous focus. Overall, there is a slight edge in keeper rate with the former method, but the continuous method requires less effort. </p> <p>At the end of the day it's a question of weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of changing systems - and whether these differences well be negative or positive for you. For me, there have been far more positives than negatives from downscaling - for example I can always have a great camera and a couple of lenses with me wherever I go and I will hardly feel the weight. I can also shoot longer assignments, and stay on my feet more. That was simply impossible in my DSLR-only days, and as a result I did very little personal work, and as a consequence I gathered very little stock and very little competition imagery - and I had far less practice in a number of situations. Downscaling has transformed all of that and I've also developed an interest in street photography which is so much easier with a small camera. But if you are exclusively a sports and bird photographer, and if you're not shooting too often, and if you're not on your feet or walking around a location for hours at a time - then there may be no need for you to change systems at all if you can manage the weight of your current one.</p>

<p>That's correct Kenneth, I find the Olympus bodies and Olympus and Panasonic lenses are fantastic for nature and wildlife. I also get a huge amount of use out of the Panasonic 100-300 given the incredible magnification that gives - way beyond anything I could carry (or afford) for my full frame setup (which I have all but abandoned now unless I'm shooting at a specific Canon sponsored event - and the weight of it just about kills me). I also use Olympus Micro 4/3 for all of my other work - portraiture and commercial. </p>

<p>We get asked this occasionally and my response has been set out in a blog article (which largely reiterates what has already been said here): http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/finding-the-right-photographer/</p> <p>We can do what we can to educate clients but these days we do face the mindset that photographers are all the same and all that is needed is a fancy camera. Going by the rising number of complaints against photographers which have popped up on this forum over the years, you would think that common sense would prevail - but it's surprisingly rare. On a couple of occasions this season I have been approached by couples who are dissatisfied with their wedding photography - these are couples with a healthy budget (and quite a bit of general intellect) who felt it was not necessary to spend much on the pictures, and who have been left with poor results which they hope can be 'rescued' after the fact. And if the pictures can't be rescued, then they are expecting advice on how to pursue a claim against the photographer - with little heed to the fact that they instructed somebody inexperienced, cheap, and uninsured. Unfortunately it can be a matter of informing the couple but they have received exactly what they paid for.</p>

<p>Marc, can I respectfully ask you not to label me (as cynical) - you know nothing about me and I would not take it upon myself to chastise you for your own thoughts and opinions.</p> <p>The figures are irrefutable, we know that around half of Western marriages will fail - that is not cynicism, that is a fact. We can go on to consider the reasons why they might fail, it isn't rocket science.</p> <p>I know an awful lot of wedding photographers and a great many of them will agree that a sizeable proportion of the weddings they are involved with could most certainly fall into the "charade" category. We will at times wonder what on earth has brought those couples together and we can also wonder how long things might last. Once again, this is supported by statistics. If the weddings you photograph are exempt from failure then I will not argue with you, but it is not always the case. I will also add that one does not have to be an all-out supporter of marriage in order to photograph weddings - any more than you need to be a parent in order to successfully photograph children, or affiliated to a given group in order to undertake a commission for them.</p> <p>If not poorly matched, many couples are clearly overspending on their event and some of those will then seek to find ways to claw back that expenditure - of course that is a charade. It is not (and should not be) a requirement that a couple hosts a lavish bash beyond their means in order to enter into a formal partnership. You'll see over expenditure across the socio-economic board.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have no idea why Marc chose to take a personal swipe at me, but I am quite sure he will understand why a response was in order.</p> <p>Michael, I would disagree with the view that there is no money to be made on budget weddings. A great many photographers can leverage this end of the market quite effectively. The service is a low investment one and generally the standard of the photography can be anything from poor to quite good, which the client will generally expect and understand. The product itself is most usually a collection of photographs with only very basic edits which are then burned to digital media and everything can be done and dusted in a few hours - no viewings, no album design etc.</p> <p>I know some excellent and fairly expensive wedding photographers who are running at a loss simply because the time investment and product investment is too high when placed against the number of clients they can realistically take on - which may mean their pricing needs to be higher, or their product reduced somewhat. Handing over the kitchen sink can be costly. In other words, ensuring there is balance between time and product is key.</p> <p>Whilst the number of people getting married has dropped as a percentage of the whole, the population has probably grown somewhat in the last couple of decades so perhaps overall numbers of couples getting married may not have changed much. In that regard, I don't think there's any significant shortage of couples. But what I have seen couples who are spending less which I think is due to the higher cost of living nowadays.</p>

<p>Marc said:<strong> "As to the cynical reflections on Marriage as an institution, my observations are that a least some of this has come from the self absorbed and entitled generations who think societal ties are something one does by posting on a social site rather than actually interacting with-in a society."</strong><br> <br> That is clearly aimed at me. <br> <br> What a indictment of people who simply have a different view to your own - one that may well be based on reality rather than rose tinted idealism. Marc - not everybody comes from a close background, or has a close family, or has parents with a stable marriage, or blindly upholds traditional values which often fit poorly with the world we live in today. We know very well that around half of all marriages will fail - that is a simple fact. <br> <br> I will also add that you don't need to go through the stress and expense of a wedding in order to make a commitment to someone. Just because a wedding ring is absent doesn't mean that a given individual spends all of their time on Facebook and is therefore socially irresponsible as you clearly suggest. Nor is it mandatory to to be married before founding a family. These days the cost of living is arguably higher than it used to be and so more and more couples (and if applicable their families) would rather put that money towards a home, or necessities. Your judgement has a righteous ring to it which is quite unnecessary.<br> <br> </p>

<p>Hi Michael, for some reason people are still placed under the most ridiculous social pressure to get married. Although better than it was 30 years ago, most relationships are still considered almost invalid unless the participants have been through a marriage ceremony. So although there has been a decline in marriage (there are at least some people wisely waking up to the fact that it isn't mandatory) I don't think there is going to be any crash in marriage numbers and we will still see plenty of brides and grooms in decades to come. I don't think it's going to have a huge impact on wedding photographers, at least not in our lifetime.</p> <p>Speaking personally, I cannot see the mentality in spending huge sums of money on one day - whilst there are some economic and tax advantages to marriage, the rest of the rationale is hard to fathom. You do not need to go through that charade in order to make a commitment to someone. There is no longer any particular stigma attached to having a family "out of wedlock" nor is there anything wrong with living together. There is also ample evidence to suggest that marriage is not always an emotionally healthy arrangement and the demise of around half of all marriages in the Western world does support that. But centuries of pressure and conditioning are hard to shake off.</p>

<p>Dear Videographer,<br> Many thanks for your offer of £500. For information, our current rates stand at £1650 for wedding coverage of approximately 8 hours and the full collection of photographs on disk (with no hard product). This fee includes the pre-wedding Administration and consultations, the photography itself, reasonable time in transit, and the post wedding phase entailing editing, processing, retouching, proofing, and finally product delivery. On average it takes anything from 45-70 hours to fully administer and deliver the average wedding.<br> Your project entails approximately 3 times the effort and hours described above, however since we are engaged with the same client I am happy to discount the full fee by 30%. Therefore my rate for carrying out the work as set out will be £3465.<br> Kind regards,<br> xxxx</p> <p>You have to take into account the fact that for the huge amount of time you are involved with this wedding you are obviously not available to other wedding clients - you're going to miss out on probably two other weddings if you take this job, given the amount of preparation and post-work. Not to mention if the various family groups require albums and other products.<br> If they are so insultingly cheap then obviously they are not going to pay anything like a reasonable rate - they are not going to get a professional photographer but may get somebody gullible who dabbles. </p>