Future of the wedding phtoography industry

<p>Ilkka, now understood, thank you for clarifying.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>For clarity I did not ever mention that one person would be taking the stills and the videos - the number of people working was not my consideration at all. My point was: that there will be convergence of the media and from that convergence and also in consideration of the generally changing Clients' expectations and usages of the final STILL images that they will purchase - the "Wedding Photography Industry" is in for massive change and in my opinion that will be dominated by Video capable Cameras and the product will move toward originating from original Video Captured Images.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What is your opinion of the future of the wedding photography industry ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like everyone else's I'd guess ... negative due to the current state of flux, and yet positive IF one can get a handle on the consumer's directional trends and construct a relevant business model. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will it get better or worse in terms of financial success ? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>In general, statistics show a steady decline in weddings themselves. Plus, those who are getting married, are doing so later in life to start a family compared to previous generations, with a growing number of them paying for it themselves. This decline in marriages is also partly due to more lenient levels of societal acceptance of alternative "arrangements". <br>

<br>

Decline in weddings + more people doing wedding photography = you do the math.<br>

<br>

Perhaps the bigger question is: will full time wedding photographers survive as an industry at all?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will technology dumb it down even more to the point that our unregulated and unlicensed <br />profession will be relegated to working for less than sustainable wages ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of wedding photography, it's already probably as "dumb" as it needs to get. This is a "here and now" society, where content is created as it happens and shared seconds later. I recently ordered the new Sony A7 camera that I can use my Zeiss and Leica M lenses on ... but the kicker is that I can simply touch the camera grip to my cell phone or tablet to wifi the images, and then send them anywhere I want (not that I plan on doing that since it isn't my approach to wedding photography, nor does it fit my business model).<br>

<br>

As to wages, for most wedding photographers it is already unsustainable as a viable living, and has been for some time. Most wedding shooters are part timers and do not have to make a sustainable wage. They either have a regular job, or do other more diversified types of photography. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br />Will digital (i.e., stills) remain king, or will video take over ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Consumer expectations may push for a combination, and some, if not many, photographers may offer it in future. However, it remains to be seen if a commensurable pricing can be sustained. I've often been surprised how little wedding videographers make for the amount of work that is involved. <br>

<br>

This suggests that consumer demand dictates prices, and video suddenly isn't going to get more popular and more valuable because one person is doing it all. I think the consumer will see it as less expensive "one stop shopping" ... but the labor portion isn't going to magically go away ... so photographers will be doing more for less. <br>

<br>

-Marc<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p><strong>Personally, I think Britton Reynolds' post is a must read when addressing the OPs subject: "The Future of Wedding Photography" ... specifically, your future and how you get there.</strong></p>

<p>In the corporate world, what Britton is talking about is called "Relationship Marketing". Some years ago, it became apparent that there had to be a duality of presenting any product or service. That concept was distilled down to a couple of catch phrases: <em>"High Tech, High Touch"</em>... and ... <em>"Think Global, Act Local"</em>. </p>

<p>In essence, as the technology of photography advanced to the point that consumers had an increasingly difficult time distinguishing one photographer's product from another (both shooting style and post work are fresh for maybe a year before copied ad nauseam), and no other "real" point of difference was readily apparent ... then the consumer filled in the vacuum ... which is always price .... <strong>always!</strong></p>

<p>Guess what? That is exactly what happened.</p>

<p>This is NOT to say that there is no one producing a style or quality of wedding work that a certain consumer demographic appreciates and are willing to pay a premium for. However, that's akin to some aspiring actor/actress wishing they were making a movies like Brat Pitt or Julia Roberts. Highly unlikely.</p>

<p>It also should be noted that you can STILL distinguish your work based on the end product using techniques that are difficult to master and often using equipment that most wedding shooters cannot justify ... or more likely, are either terrified of, or don't have the where-with-all to master. One of those is professional lighting. </p>

<p>There are <strong>pros and cons</strong> when it comes to "relationship" type approaches for something like Wedding Photography.</p>

<p><strong>One positive</strong> is that it can be a base to expand your photographic business with a client that already knows you, trusts you, and that you can keep for years, not just one weekend. This amortizes all the effort it took to win them for the wedding photography.</p>

<p>For example, in the past two weeks I did regular annual family sessions with two previous wedding clients at a rate that exceeds my hourly wedding rate, and is far less stressful. Plus, they buy prints due to the subject matter ... their family. I have a third family session next week ... the sister of one of those clients who just saw the shots I did for her sister's family. </p>

<p><strong>One possible con</strong> to this approach is whether it can win the wedding job in the first place? Conveying a "personality trait" isn't easy unless done in person. While "testimonials" are often effective, they can also be nullified by everyone else also having glowing reviews from previous clients.</p>

<p>For example, I had a Premium level ad with 21 glowing 5 Star endorsements for both my product <strong>and</strong> personality on the Wedding Wire ... won their Bride's Choice Awards 4 years in a row ... which I referenced for any new prospective client whom contacted me. It landed me zero jobs. None.</p>

<p>I believe consumers in general are sociality devaluating the ritual of wedding photography and will continue to do so. Of course there are exceptions, which everyone will be vying for at an ever ferocious rate of attrition. The Golden Age may behind us and it will all settle down to a specific rate of work available for some, while jettisoning a huge amount of shooters ... like has happened in other areas of photography.</p>

<p>To be one of the ones left standing will require very hard work, perseverance, and some extremely clever product/personality traits.</p>

<p>Glad I am semi-retiring to do just a few weddings a year that fall in my lap ... it all sounds so exhausting ... LOL!</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>sociality devaluating</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are these neologisms? Sorry what do you mean? Do you mean that weddings, as "big events", are becoming devalued in society? If so I agree!</p>

<p>LOL ... both words exist in the dictionary ... but put together this way, I guess they qualify as a neologism.</p>

<p>While a major contributing factor, I think it is more than just the general societal devaluation of weddings as big events ... it seems deeper than that.</p>

<p>While people love their photos and take zillions of them daily, the very tsunami of images and ways to proliferate them world-wide has formed a sort of collective awareness that is tough for a single person to compete with.</p>

<p>Add to that the "here today, gone today" nature of a vast majority of images taken now, and that few people even care if the images will be around later ... or at least they don't care enough to do anything about it.</p>

<p>This is strikingly different from previous generations.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>that few people even care if the images will be around later</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For previous generations, you had your pictures taken at your graduation or wedding and that about it. I don't think my folks have 100 pictures to show me for their entire life. Now someone sends me 100 selfies just because they are bored waiting for a flight. Constant and readily availability of photos undermines their sentimental value.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What's ONE of the first things people scoop up when they are forced to evacuate their home ? Their family photos.</p>

<p>John M. says,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's ONE of the first things people scoop up when they are forced to evacuate their home ? Their family photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

We say this a lot, but is it really true? I'm not challenging you. This is what I myself might do (after saving my family and my animals). But I'm not sure this is true any more for my brides. I think the first thing they save is their iPhone. THEN they think about their cats etc. And I'm not sure they rescue their photos. I bet a lot of them couldn't even say off the top of their heads where their wedding book is.<br>

<br>

I continue to preach the gospel of prints and books. And we're all here in the choir nodding our heads and saying "Amen, brother!" But I'm not sure there are very many people sitting in the pews any more. I refuse to get depressed about it, but if I wanted to, well, it's kind of depressing.<br>

<br>

Will</p>

<p>Yesterday I dropped by my lab to get a quote for printing 3 copies of a 60 page wedding album (my biggest yet).</p>

<p>I mentioned my concerns for preserving images to the owner, who is a long time friend. He said he was concerned also, and had read industry articles about historians and documentarians being very concerned that decades of cultural records were being erased or lost forever in some way.</p>

<p>The great hope is that technology will eventually solve this issue ... which lead to a discussion of cloud storage (often mentioned as today's way of safely storing our images). The issues that counter this solution are 1) you have to pay for it, and if you stop paying the images go bye-bye ... 2) It takes forever for the average person to load images ... and if we pros want to save our higher resolution images in any original, non-distructive format it takes an eternity, or cannot be done at all. In short, it requires money and diligent patience, both of which are in short supply with the "Here and Now" generation. </p>

<p>For example, I use SmugMug to back-up/store all my weddings and give my client's access for viewing and print orders ... plus I can download any image I may wish to use myself. However, SmugMug is not free, and you can only upload jpegs. BTW, despite the ease of ordering prints right from home, and my very modest pricing structure, few clients or their family members order much compared to 6 or 7 years ago.</p>

<p>I did learn something new. The lab owner informed me of DVDs that are claimed to last 1,000 years. They are referred to a "Stone" DVDs. The US Navy Seals tested all types of DVDs in the most extreme conditions, including fire and flood, and all DVDs failed except these 1,000 year Stone DVDs. Never even heard of them before this. </p>

<p>Of course, most lap-top computers now being made don't even have a DVD player built in (???).</p>

<p>Like William Porter, all I can do is impress on my clients the importance of getting prints of the most iconic or important family images we make for them ... which is why I still maintain an Epson 3800 on premises and include a few prints with every job. I've found that when clients actually see how beautiful a print looks compared to their little lap-top screen, they are more like to make more prints.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the key to retaining access to the most important photographs is to be very selective about which images to keep, so that they can be copied to multiple media quickly and the archive can be maintained. I think this kind of stuff (making backups) they should teach at school already since a lot of young adults don't appreciate the importance of this. I think it's this living in the moment culture.</p>

<p>I don't think we can fully rely on third party cloud service providers. Those facilities are run and maintained by human beings in the end, and humans are forgetful and make mistakes. Data will be lost, it's not a question of "if" but "when" and "how much". Also, as Marc noted, transferring large image archives to cloud is impractically slow. So again, cloud storage is fine as one piece of the solution but personal backups must also be maintained. And the culling of the important images to keep safe to the smallest number will help also with transferring them to the cloud. I think we all have to learn to let go of some, and keep some even if the decision process is not perfect. </p>

<p>I think making prints of the most important images to clients whether they ask them or not, is a good idea. They'll thank you in the end when they realize what they got. Also it helps provide a reference for quality printing when they have prints or albums or books made by third party outlets, they can see if those labs did a good job of printing or not, and may return to the photographer for more prints if the quality with the labs wasn't good. At least theoretically they may. ;-) And I think it is a nice touch on top of the requested service if they explicitly didn't order the prints they'll feel they got a good deal.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We say this a lot, but is it really true? </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Good point. I've never seen any data to back this up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good point. I've never seen any data to back this up.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, this is all the more reason why digital trumps print. Long as the couple saves the digital files on cloud and there's no reason current and future generation of clients won't be doing that, they will never lose the pictures.</p>

<p>Green Photog writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, this is all the more reason why digital trumps print. Long as the couple saves the digital files on cloud and there's no reason current and future generation of clients won't be doing that, they will never lose the pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You didn't add a smiley face or anything else that would tell me you're being ironic or sarcastic, so I'm forced to take this statement at face value.<br>

<br>

Speaking as somebody who's been creating digital files since about 1980, my take is: Anything that stays digital <em>will almost certainly be lost.</em><br>

Now, I'm not talking about data that is managed by institutions "too big to fail" like the government, major banks, and a few others. I'm not sure what will happen with them in the next fifty years. These institutions have not only the foresight but also the resources to preserve old technologies and old data. There are still programmers making good money maintaining COBOL and FORTRAN code on mainframes. But not many companies are that reliable. Osborne, Wang, Atari — all once huge computer companies that didn't survive the early years of the PC wars. I'm 61. Google might outlive me, but I wouldn't count on it. Twenty years — heck, <em>ten</em> years ago — Microsoft looked invincible. Today, I'm pretty sure my 18 year old doesn't know what Microsoft is. <br>

<br>

But forget about the big companies. I'm talking about individuals. Individuals don't have the resources or the foresight to preserve their files through major changes in technology. I still have print copies of documents I created c 1985 on my first Mac (a 512K model) — but I lost the digital copies eons ago. The reasons I lost the files are varied. In some cases, the file formats became obsolete and inaccessible. I lost a few files through catastrophes like hard disk failure and because I wasn't always as good about backing up as I am now. And some files aren't exactly "lost" but might as well be: My office is full of old floppy (5.25") and microfloppy disks (of multiple storage capacities), zip disks, Jaz disks, and obsolete hard disks that I can't connect to any current computer I've got because the hardware interfaces are so out of date. I'm not saying it's <em >impossible.</em> I'm saying that connecting those old storage devices is a problem that I, as an individual — albeit an individual with a great deal of technical expertise — don't have the energy to try to solve. </p>

<p>And then there's the fact that cloud storage is (a) inherently unreliable and (b) not free. It's inherently unreliable for lots of reasons, including the fact that today's technology will not be tomorrow's (so Amazon and Dropbox and every other cloud service provider has, simply in a huge way, the same problem with technologies obsolescing that we as individuals have). It's unreliable because none of those companies care about my data as much as I do. It's also unreliable because of hackers, technical failures, etc. Hotmail lost millions of users emails. Adobe's user accounts were compromised. The list of examples is endless. I personally lost thousands and thousands of email messages when my first Gmail account was irretrievably hacked. They were mostly personal mails to family and friends. I'm sorry to have lost them. I hope the hacker fries in hell. But my letters are GONE.</p>

<p>And then there's the fact that I've got a ton of photos stored on servers at Flickr, Google, and elsewhere — and I'm paying year by year to keep them there. I've been using Zenfolio for many years. I'm about to let my account lapse. I don't know how my gigs of images I have there but it's a lot. It'll all soon be gone. Stop paying, and after a decent interval, they delete it. </p>

<p>Finally, there's the problem that when there's so much data, nobody knows where anything specific is, what's a duplicate, etc. When there's a lot of something it is inherently less valuable. And with digital files, where the whole notion of a "master" copy is problematic, it's extremely easy to get confused about where your "master" files are stored. More than once I've deleted files by accident because I was sure that the copies I was deleting (during some digital housekeeping) were <em>duplicates.</em> And I was wrong. Nowadays I'm obsessively carefully about what's a master or primary copy and what's a backup; and even so, I fairly often get confused.</p>

<p>•</p>

<p>Meanwhile, let me talk about the photos from my own wedding. I have never backed them up. My wife once, years ago, moved them into a different photo album, but otherwise we've not spent any time at all worrying about the impact on changes in technology on access to our wedding pics. Even if the power goes out, I can walk into our sitting room and find — in 30 seconds — the album containing the couple dozen photos that my brother in law took of our wedding. That wedding was in 1975 — almost forty years ago. Heck, I can open a drawer in my desk right now, open a little box, and peruse the little drugstore snapshot album from my <em>parents' </em>tiny wedding in 1950. My wife did got to a studio and have a professional bridal portrait done. It was published in the newspaper's announcements section, and then it hung in my mother-in-law's house until a few years ago when she died at the age of 97. Now it hangs in the sitting area of our bedroom.</p>

<p>It would be pointless to <em>blame</em> them for this, but today's young brides, for the most part, have no concept of the future at all because they have no concept of the past. I fear many of them don't even have much confidence that they'll ever celebrate their silver or golden anniversaries with their husbands, so they don't see photos as treasures, as time capsules, the way people used to. </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>I have chromes from the Korean war that look pristine. Put all digital files on film ? :)</p>

<p><strong>"What's ONE of the first things people scoop up when they are forced to evacuate their home ? Their family photos"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

I'd love to know where this notion comes from. Having been evacuated at very short notice from two war zones, I can tell you now that grabbing some photos was the last thing on our mind (likewise the many other families I knew who faced the same plight). Instead we grabbed documents, jewellery, and cash - and perhaps a coat if we had time.<br>

<br>

As for the state of the industry, proportionately speaking I don't think it's that different to 20 years ago - what I mean is the majority of wedding photographers have always been either bad or mediocre. 20 years ago it was quite difficult to find somebody consistently competent. The same can be said today, there are just far more of them to choose from. The really good photographers I know (providing they understand business and marketing) are busy and are doing well. The majority might prefer doing it part-time, because these days to run a full-time business is gruelling and would necessitate even longer hours and that horrible thing called responsibility. In general, most people simply want the easiest life.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with Lindsay and my view is based upon me being in a position of having, to have a plan.<br>

<br />Where I live we (must) have an household ‘Disaster Plan’, including a plan for both Voluntary & Mandatory Evacuation: we broach a large national park, which is prone to bushfire, probably recently noted in many world newscasts.<br>

<br />Not many, at least of the folks whom I know, have family photo albums or the like, in the secure "go to bag": however the contents of that bag certainly comprises Documents and Cash.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>On the second point Lindsay raises - I agree that the "majority" are ether bad or mediocre: but I do think that "proportionately" there are now<strong><em> fewer</em></strong> consistently good Wedding Photographers to be found now than before - and that is because the there is a MUCH greater number providing a lesser quality service and product, than there were 20 years ago.<br>

<br />What I mean is, for example: in a sample of 1000, drawn from a 10,000 total available pool of W. Photographers from a particular geographical region in 1993 - we could find that 200 of the 1000 to be "consistently competent" (i.e.20%).<br>

<br />I think that that figures now could be 100 or even fewer <strong><em>of that 1000 sample</em></strong> would be consistently competent which would be much smaller percentage: but that would be because <strong><em>in the same geographical region there would be maybe 20,000 or even more, who are shooting weddings 'professionally'. </em></strong><br>

<br />I think the point that there are many, many more people (in raw numbers) today than before who are hanging out a shingle as a Wedding Photographer is ONE of the reasons which is at the crux of the why the industry is where it is at, today.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>Yes, having given this further thought I do think you're right William - there most probably are far less half decent photographers than they used to be, taken against the whole. It's not uncommon to encounter working wedding shooters who really don't know the basics - they simply buy the biggest camera and whack on the fastest lens, set to the widest aperture. There is also a pervasive belief that camera craft is not an absolute necessity, given the high ISO capabilities of modern camera bodies, and dynamic range. This means that most shooters may feel they don't need to learn anything about lighting, and if things go wrong the errors can sometimes be disguised under the mantle of "creativity". 20 years ago wedding photography was fairly standard, there were a very elegant photographers out there but one would pay a fortune for them. I recall reportage was very new and considered to be a fad - and that is another area which is being misused by newer photographers nowadays - why worry about posing, direction, or control when you can tell the world you specialise in candid picture taking.</p>

<p>I sometimes wonder what would happen if our industry became regulated, by that I mean some kind of central body being set up which any working professional would need to register with (pallbearers substantial fine if caught operating without the requisite licence), and they could not register unless they had one of the recognised industry qualifications. In the UK this would likely be an HND or above, or Licentiate standard and upwards with one of the four main institutions (RPS, BIPP, MPA, SWPP). The problem is that photography doesn't need to be regulated in the same way that other trades might, no one is going to die or become maimed as a result of malpractice.</p>

<p>Hi cuz . . .<br>

I've had many conversations about this and I have come to the conclusion that another point which has great weight is:<br>

With the digital era - because the computer is <em><strong>the darkroom</strong> </em>and also (generally) <em><strong>the viewing deck - </strong></em>these fact have borne a culture of what I term <strong><em>'back to front protocol'.</em></strong> <br>

That is to say the capture device (the camera) has become minor and a poor secondary to the computer.<br>

As a result, we get a culture of 'any capture will do' and the ‘craft’ is ALL in the computer skills, which of course is the area where so many are more adept, or at least fell more comfortable.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p><strong>"As a result, we get a culture of 'any capture will do' and the ‘craft’ is ALL in the computer skills, which of course is the area where so many are more adept"</strong><br>

<br>

Very much so, and I also know many photographers adept at making a sows ear from a silk purse, all in the name of art of course. I also think that part of the reason why the vintage style became popular a few years ago is because the particular tints and treatments were very good at masking critical focus or a lack of attention to colour balance. I know a couple of vintage style photographers who simply cannot produce a well crafted and well processed photograph. I wonder what will become of them when the fad for vintage starts to wane. <br>

<br>

I believe that one of the things which sets apart the successful photographers from the transient ones is the ability to diversify somewhat (perhaps into commercial photography, corporate photography, or fine art photography) which requires a fairly well rounded skill set. This might partly explain why many of the more established photographers have also added training, or consulting, or judging to their repertoire. </p>

<p>. . . yes interesting about adding “training” to one's repertoire: <br>

I have previously taught at TAFE, which is College situated for post high school matriculation. However teaching positions and opportunities there are waning.<br>

Perhaps the structured “Basic & Advanced Photography Course” in which one must enrol and has to then ‘attend’ each Tuesday and Thursday evening for three hours, is giving way to adults accessing "Free Forum Learning" and many other forms of web information, or online ‘do in your own time’ courses which are available, many without any cost?</p>

<p>However I tutor school students, who are studying ART and are majoring in Photography and this provides a challenge, as these students <em>who want tutors </em>are very keen, also very quick and demanding: and also willing to pay a fair fee (at least their parents are).<br>

Not all my students (in fact only one in the past five years) will take on Photography or an allied craft as their main goal in further studies and work: but all wanted to achieve an high score in their Matriculation to allow them a range of choices at University entry.</p>

<p>Although this is only a small sample and extremely anecdotal, I think it is still worth mentioning - these kids are gifted and highly motivated and it seems to me that they were using their Art Subject as an escape from the mainstream Subjects, but none the less they want to excel in that subject also.<br>

All of my students have kept Photography as their passion and (I think) also release from their University studies and work, which (quirkily) in the vast majority - all have gone into, The Law.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Jeeze, the last thing photography needs is government or committee involvement with complex group devised regulations, lobbyists, and all that. The government nor committees can't run anything well, why would they do a good job here?</p>

<p>I have been an advocate of educating the public for some time now. If one of the larger photographer associations would under take such a task, it could be a win-win for both the unsuspecting, (sometimes even clueless) consumer, and professional photographers dedicated to their art and craft.</p>

<p>I do not think newbies are specifically less talented than many professionals. IMO, it is more about consistency of applying that talent. Weddings for example are pressure ridden, time sensitive, very social affairs that many talented photographers are not suited to, professional or not.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>William, I think the students are very sensible choosing Law!</p>

<p>Marc, a regulatory system need not be complex. All it requires is a form of registration where the photographer proves they are certificated, and if they are caught operating without the requisite qualifications/license they are fined. I think Germany has a similar system, although I don't know the specifics. </p>

<p>I have spent years trying to educate the public. It's a losing battle - why would the public be open to education about photographers? They don't care. Bodies such as the BIPP (The British Institute of Professional Photography) have been trying to work with venues, magazines, the media and brides to encourage them to consider accredited photographers rather than a cheaper alternative. It's not having much effect. Remember that society has changed a huge amount in the last 20 years, there is far less of a sense of responsibility or accountability nowadays. Educating the public doesn't work. And education for photographers is currently optional.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter how many talented or effective photographers there are if the public will not or cannot tell the difference between a competent professional and a hapless newbie, other than price of course, which is the one common denominator which repeatedly crops up in these discussions. It's not that most brides cannot afford a decent photographer, they simply don't think it's a priority because in their mind all photographers are pretty much the same, if they have some fancy kit in their hand. Adjusting that thought process can be near enough impossible.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would say I never liked any pre 1990 wedding photos that I had seen. Sure the exposure and focus were right in those photos but it's same stuff shirt poses.</p>

<p>There a far more fauxtographer nowadays but to say the past is always better than the present is a romatic fallacy.</p>

<p>If you want to educate people about art, and to value art, it should take place in schools. If you have a photographer association try to "educate" the public, every intelligent person will know they're not interested in education but want the public to buy services from the members of the organization. So the targets to this "education" will simply shut their ears out and regard it simply as the advertising it really is. Education has to be non-commercially motivated to be taken seriously. If you have an ineffective government, it is because of the people you and your co-citizens voted to run it, not because governments in general are ineffective (they are not).</p>

 

<p>Ilkka, if what you say were true, then no advertising would work because it is obvious that it exists to inform and sell the public. If it didn't work, then no company or corporation would spend money to do advertising. </p>

<p>Wedding photographers are selling a service. Differentiating themselves is a primary goal. Any assistance from an association or organization could be in the form of a basic accrediation, and a compelling reason why consumers should consider such individuals. It has less to do with "art" and perhaps more to do with responsibility and competence.</p>

<p>Even this website often deals with some basic areas of responsibility when informing newbies ... all of which the general consumer of wedding photography knows nothing about, but would be better off if they did.</p>

<p>- Marc <br>

</p>