Would you shoot for this studio?

<p>I have been second shooting for a wedding studio. They pay $180 for 4 hours of second shooting, which mainly just consists of going around taking table shots of 150+ guests during the reception. Most of the assignments are 1 hr + distance from me. When/if I were to go on to shoot full weddings for them, they would pay $400 for an entire wedding, including months of preparation (communication with the bride, helping to plan the day, trying to upsell, etc.)</p>

<p>The most disturbing thing I'd learned about this studio was how they encourage upselling (not uncommon I suppose) and how they may actually lie to customers.... the boss had talked about them using stock photos that were not taken by you, adding them to your portfolio, and phrasing it to the customers "this is how this photographer shoots" or something of the like, so they will assume it's your work.</p>

<p>Anyway, do you think this deal would be worth your time?</p>

<p>I'm seriously considering ending working with them because they no longer offer compensation for editing time. And I am starting to reconsider my passion for the wedding field; I feel, at least with this studio, that pressure and stress are extremely high and creativity is hard to come by in that situation. I'm thinking of focusing on children and families. <br /><br /><br /> What do you think?</p>

<p>Being 2nd shooter sounds like a much better deal. $180 for 4 hours or so, no muss, no fuss vs. 400 for all the other hours (how many do you guess?) of work?</p>

<p>Well, the actual hourly rate for photographers (not second shooters) is $50. So if you get a bride who needs 8 hours you get $400. Obviously there would be some brides that need 10 hours or so, so you'd get more. </p>

<p>Also, they only have you shoot a time or two a month. It's not like this could ever be a full time thing</p>

<p>Even the $180 (for 4 hours of work) is a bad deal tantamount to compensation for a whole day plus gas money, expenses, and wear on your gear, unless $180 a day is better than nothing. </p>

<p>Michael - that is what I was thinking. It puts a LOT of wear on my gear.</p>

"how they may actually lie to customers.... the boss had talked about them using stock photos that were not taken by you,

adding them to your portfolio, and phrasing it to the customers "this is how this photographer shoots" or something of the

like, so they will assume it's your work."

 

That's the deal killer right there.

I would look for better work.

<p>I quit today. I learned a lot from them, going to their seminars and apprenticing on full weddings, but I think you're right, it's not worth it any more. </p>

<p>You did the right thing. </p>

<p>Assuming you are a competent photographer with experience shooting weddings (and you are) all that they are providing to you is the marketing. That is a big deal. The hardest challenges facing a new wedding photographer are prospecting and selling. If you can master these you will get to keep all of the money and have a much better feeling about yourself at the end of the day. </p>

<p>The bit about putting someone else's shots in your portfolio.....disgusting. And if a photographer does that are they supplying the liability insurance? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>You did the right thing - as soon as they put stock photos in your portfolio you should have quit. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Have too agree with the others, time to get out of there. On the plus side you made a few bucks and hopefully learned a lot both positive and negative.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>$180 for 4 hours work? Plus post-shoot processing? Driving over an hour one way? Packing and unpacking gear? Potential traffic hassles. Cost of gas? Possibly obnoxious people? No, just no. I'd be hard pressed not to laugh in someone's face if they offered me a "deal" like this. Bottom line? I wouldn't touch this.</p>

<p>Jim - for 2nd shooters in the Twin Cities (where I'm based) the going rate is $25.00 per hour - no pay for travel, gas, etc... Occasionally you can find a decent primary who will up it to $50 per hour, but again - no travel, gas, parking, etc... </p>

<p>The $50.00 an hour for primary (and no pay for meetings / consults) is pretty typical for George Street, Bella (if they are still around), etc... But with most of them, the photographer is not involved in the upsell, editing, pre-wedding (except for maybe an engagement session) or quick meet and greet. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Wow. That kind of sucks... But, OTOH, if you are trying to learn, for awhile at least, seconding, while it wouldn't pay any bills, would get you a reasonable amount of experience. If you are looking to start your own shop, or trying to build client skills, such experience is worth it's weight in gold.</p>

<p>The choice to leave is NOT so much about how much money that was being paid.</p>

<p>I agree with the emphasis and words used by Ellis Vener and David Haas. Placing stock photos into others' portfolios is simply wrong on more than one level. Doing so is being deceptive to the Customer.<br /> But more importantly to the commentary here - it is luring the employed (novice) photographers into the web of deception by seducing them with accolades and comments about 'their work' - which they have not earned.</p>

<p>It takes a strong person to walk from the temptation of unearned praise: and Holly did good so to do.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>You need to take a hike. This is not a Third World country -- yet. But the moneygrubbers are making it that way. Do not help them.</p>