Losing customers because everyone wants the images

[iwao_sakurai]

<p>This is ridiculous, in no way do you have to give all your files; no matter how much the client as paid or shall be served. As a graphic designer I'm not giving away all my original design data/drafts/sketches/pictures/ etc...only the finished best, then the client chooses from the best.<br>

Wedding photography is being dragged into the mud by of you who believe the client is king and we should listen to everything they say. The base client is "stupid" we must make it seem like their are smart!</p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>I can understand where <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> is coming from, but I respectfully disagree with the premise that 1)you can't give a client images that haven't been heavily edited in post production and 2)that clients are going to be satisfied with the pay a little up front, pay more if you like what you got model.</p>

<p>1. I guess I'm different than most wedding photographers, but my images (the keepers anyway) look good enough out of the camera that I'm not uncomfortable giving them a full-resolution copy of an unedited image or an image with only very basic Lightroom adjustments. Even if I provide an edited version of an image, I still include the unedited version of the DNG or JPG (depending on their request) for them to keep for archival purposes. Especially in an era where post-production work can make your photos look "trendy" today, and therefore "dated" tomorrow, I think I owe it to my clients to give them an image that captures the day as it actually was so that they can keep it for posterity.</p>

<p>2. While the low up-front cost model has its merits and will work for some people, I still think it's not the right model for most. It's my wedding day. I am not going to repeat my wedding day. I want to count on the fact that you can deliver great images for every client--especially me. So while you have an incentive to produce great images so that I buy more, I am going to be extremely frustrated if you underperform. What if you only captured 3 images that are actually worth printing out? My wedding is worse for having hired you, in that case. Not having to spend as much money on mediocre prints doesn't make me happy. I'm just upset that you couldn't even produce prints good enough for me to buy. My only solace is that at least Uncle Bob was around with his D5000 and kit lens and caught a few moments (albeit poorly exposed and slightly out of focus) to let me remember the day by. And he doesn't care where I post my pictures or what I do with them. At least I have all of the files from Uncle Bob.</p>

<p>Lastly, I understand you at some level. I do believe that a pro doesn't show the client all of his work. I am borderline ruthless when it comes to cutting out images that don't make the cut technically, but I also believe that we do clients a disservice when they hire us to document their wedding and we only give them a handful of overproduced shots to remember the day by. I say give them a copy of the unedited, properly exposed, and in-focus photos from the day. Let them choose a reasonable number of images and edit those to be perfect. They will know you are great from the "wow" shots that you edited for them, but they also get to keep other (perhaps less important, but still relevant) moments you captured for them.</p>

<p>And Iwao, I think that graphic design is not exactly on the level. I don't care what your preliminary draft looks like, but I do care that you captured the moment of our first married kiss. Frankly, even if the focus is irreparably soft and the exposure is a little dark I want that photo. Because it fails technically, I may not want it on my wall, but I want it for posterity, nonetheless. Let me have the image. It's my wedding day. And while I'm sure this "lecture the client about what they really want" resonates with the old-school "used-car salesman" photographer, it doesn't resonate with my clients, and it doesn't resonate with me personally. As such, I don't do it. Anyone is free to avoid listening to what the client wants. I have a pretty successful business picking up those clients who the old-school togs can't satisfy.</p>

[les]

<p>Quite clearly there are two opposing interests at work here: the customers who want to get the most for their money, and the photographers who want to maximize their profits.<br />And no - not all customers are idi%ots who do not know bad image from a good one, and not all the photographers are greedy or insufficiently qualified (to put it mildly). In most cases the opposite is true.</p>

<p>Let me tell you why I got one guy and not the other - maybe there is some value in reading this.<br />We visited two photogs, both quite established. The third one got the job.<br />The first two visits have been generally pretty similiar - although not all the points below are applicable to both. It should be noted that all three have been polite and courteous etc.</p>

<p>- "please have a look at some of the beautiful pictures we make" - <em>OK, we already did have a look at the websites, but it can't hurt to have another look ? Wrong: the album was worn to the point it should have been replaced, and its location (on a low coffee table, with the overhead lamps creating heaps of reflection from the images) made it very difficult to concentrate on the images. </em><br />-"here are the packages we are offering and the pricing" - <em>well, good to know that - but how do you know that I need any of this? I do not want to discuss what YOU have to sell, I want to tell you what I need. </em><br />-"we can be booked for a minimum of X hours and the minimum number of prints is Y, and we charge Z amount for transport if further than...from..., and we charge additionally if we are required to stay past XY hour" <em>- uh uh..no comment here - except that XY hour specified was rather early.</em><br />-"we do not provide high resolution files on DVD, because...blah blah blah..." - <em>well, that's no good, because what I primarily want is a DVD with files </em>"sorry, we do not do that, but if you reeally want it we would have to charge you" -<em> insert here some 4-digit number.</em><br />-"why so much for the prints ?" - "oh, we use professional equipment, and then editing of the images is difficult and time consuming, and...and..." - <em>well, I have some idea regarding both, and I still think this is a bit over the top.</em></p>

<p>Half an hour wasted in both cases (not including getting there and back).</p>

<p>The third one - who landed the job (he was recommended by one of my daughter's friends, who attended one of "his" weddings):<br />- "have you looked at my website ?" - <em>yes</em> - "good, you know then what I do and how I do it. If you want to have a look at a typical wedding album - couple of examples are on the table" -<em> so, we did have a look, and at this point we decided that if all else is OK - then we will get one of these - they just looked soooo nice...</em><br />-"where is the venue and what can I do for you ? You have seen some examples of what people typically take - but feel free to put together your own package" - <em>sounds good - and the package examples on the website have been EXAMPLES - not firmly priced packages (in fact, no prices were quoted there).</em><br />-"do I provide DVD with hi-res files? - Sure, JPEGs straight out of the camera, if you want editing on some of them - let me know - there would be additional cost involved" - <em>well, getting closer and closer :)</em><br />-"the prints ? Sure, whatever you want, they are basically at a cost" - <em>sounds too good to be true... but let's wait and see</em><br />-"what do I charge? - my pricing is between $XX and $YY. Depends on what you want" - <em>sounds good, although the lower price is quite a lot more than I would expect, and the higher is way above what I would be willing (and able) to pay. But - the guy is flexible, and does not make difficulties, so it sounds promising. </em><br />-"how long do I stay ? As long as required to get the job done - within reason. But weddings do not end in 3 or 4 hours" - <em>sounds good...kind of...</em><br />So - we decided what we are going to take (some prints, a nice album, DVDs) - now, what is the price ?</p>

<p>I must say that at this point I was already sold on a) quality of images b)nice presentation c) flexibility, so I was ready to pay whatever I had to. Which means that I haven't flinched (much) when hearing the price - higher than both previous ones. But - it was a done deal.</p>

<p>Now - how it worked in practice:<br />-the guy turned up at the house EARLY, with two big bags full of high quality (and well worn) Nikon gear<br />-took some photos and then drove of to the venue (about 1.5 hrs drive) and was waiting for us there. As it turned out - he had time to talk things over with the celebrant at the church, and also look around the village (it paid off later)<br />-he was dressed in dark pants and white shirt - not too different from most of the guests when the jackets were off<br />-he was totally unobtrusive - in fact I was wondering when and how he managed to take all these pics - but he did, and they were very good - straight from the camera<br />-he managed to discover some nice locations in the village and around (where he then took B&G) to shoot some VERY pretty pics<br />-he worked about 10 hours straight and disappeared when he was not needed any more (late at night, after informing us that he has what is required - and do we need his services any longer ? - no we did not, thank you).<br />-The album was beautiful, the DVDs full of very nice high quality JPEGs (some duds have been deleted, of course - and possibly some PS action applied - maybe ?) - and really, not much editing was required if any. We printed whatever we wanted (although the quality of his prints was better, no question about that).</p>

<p>Since then - we recommended this guy to a number of people, who ended up as happy as us with the work he did. All of us paid a pretty penny (but all of us got exactly what we wanted, to a very high standard) - and there was no ill feelings about the price. This guy knew what he was doing and did a good job w/o making big fuss about ownership of the images etc. etc.).<br />As far as I am concerned (and several of other people who used him since) - his business model works a charm.</p>

<p>And - this is not a fairy tale about an ideal wedding photographer who does not exist. This has happened, and I have a lot of images to prove it. I also have the bill...well, let bygones be bygones :) It was worth it.</p>

[silverfox]

<p>People do want the image files these days, so they can print it themselves and as many as they like, so they are getting alot more value for thier money. Like everyone is saying the times have changed with the digital age. Buisiness's have to accomadate this change and offer this type of thing, other wise the customer is just going to find someone who does offer the files, ie the craiglist.</p>

[damonwoodphotography]

<p>I too have faced this dillema. I am a freelance photographer and changed to digital for one reason like the rest of us - less overhead expenditure on film & film processing and more profit from providing our product simply as a digital medium.<br /><br />I tend to quote on an estimated but accurate block of time the client needs me for and how long I beleive in reality it will take and hours expended on post processing (administration) with a small amount of consumables.<br>

I tend to produce the following for my clients;<br>

Images on DVD (x 2 copies) with simple file breakdowns of the images; All Photos, All Photos_Email Size, Choice Photos, Editors Choice and Contact Sheets. Post processing (sharpening, USM, touchups etc etc) take a significant amount of time and I place emphasis on this in the beginning so they dont expect the price just to be for the photographer "at the event". There is more too it than that.<br>

I stay almost completely away from prints due to the hassles and explicitly mention to clients prints are not included and they can be printed from my DVD / CD's by both consumer and professional labs at a fee that will vary depending on size & finish etc. Once the pictures are completed, I upload to a site so they can see the product before delivery and broadcast it to firends and family. That sometimes drums up more business.<br>

If you want to protect all of your images, digital metadata and a set of terms and conditions are the only mechanisms the mainstream photographer has in his possession unless you are a truly well established photographer that demands certain terms and control over images for good reason.<br>

My work is basically a side-job so until it becomes my mainstream income and I need to protect it, my aim is to get my name into the fishbowl and see what tackle I can muster.<br>

Things in the horizon for me if things get more mainstream for photography is the legal aspect (terms and conditions of the contract), copyright issues as mentioned in this forum, tax breaks for photographers and insurances such as indemnity. Imagine committing to a wedding and you break your leg..........., even a verbal committment to someone is still a legally binding contract - yes I will do it. That could be a very bad day for the bride and your reputation.</p>

[craig_big]

After reading all the newest comments, I went back and reread the title of the thread. I think it is particularly fitting and hilarious: "Losing customers because everyone wants the images." Ha! What else would your customers want? It's like a retaurant owner complaining: "Losing customers because everyone wants hot food."

 

Seriously, I liked Leszek Scholz's recent post with real-world examples. It reminded me of picking a photographer. One of the biggest things that turns me off, as a customer, is package deals. "For $XXXX price you get so many hours, so many 8x10's, 5x7's, and 32 wallet prints." Who wants wallet prints? I see that as money totally wasted. So what would I want with a package deal? Screw that. Also, additional fees for things that are obviously going to be required, like staying for the duration of the event, or correcting photos. Duh! Or, in the most pertinent point of the day, getting the stupid DVD. "That'll be an extra $1000". Whatever. A DVD costs about 20¢. Don't try to hike prices based on print sales. We all know that's bull-oney. We hire a photographer to be a photographer, and take and produce photographs. We shouldn't have to pay extra money to the photographer to make profit off the prints. The printer is already doing that. I know full well that a good printer charges $50-$100 for an enlargement. The printer is covering all his costs + profit. What am I supposed to think when the photographer tells me that each 11x14" print will be an extra $150? Prints should always be at cost, because it's cost to the photographer, not cost to the printer. Photographer's cost means profit to the printer. I'm also not fool enough to believe that every pro photographer is also an accomplished printer, and I know you're not all making your own prints. Maybe a couple of you are, but by-and-large pro photographers are not doing their own printing.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Craig, I don't think you're getting the point. If the DVD is given away at a low cost, the images will likely be unedited or minimally edited, thus the assumption that the photography is just about being there and clicking away. This is the equivalent of eating at McDonald's. Fast pictures, low cost. It amounts to the equivalent of buying a 1st draft of scribblings for a novel plot instead of a published book or unedited reels of film for a feature film. If that's what you want - fine, if you can find a photographer who will do it, but I'd never consider it an acceptable final product. The compensation for that would have to be enormous since everyone would see me as a produced of draft-quality work. Since almost all weddings are on Saturdays, it would be impossible to live from shooting weddings and just giving out the in-camera JPGs. I am sure that doesn't concern you but nevertheless if you want there to exist such a thing as a professional wedding photographer who spends all their working time specializing in this field, there has to be a way they can live off it. Providing a disk of unedited JPGs once a week doesn't do it. There has to be additional refinements and products. Think about the production of wood and pulp vs. reading the final product which is e.g. a newspaper on your breakfast table. Which stage do you want to be the producer in? I find that the most interesting part of wedding photography and people photography in general is telling the story, producing a coherent set of images that is greater than the sum of its constituents. This involves selecting the images which express the emotions of the main characters as well as guests, their personality, the course of the events of the day, all in a way where all the images fit seamlessly both visually and content-wise next to each other presented as in an album, or a coffee table book. Some tension and drama, piece and calm, all the elements of a rich life. In my opinion the story is the product and the unedited pictures are the raw material, not quite the paper and ink, but still content at a draft level only.</p>

<p>The cost of prints isn't about the print itself. An Epson makes a 11x14" archival print for 3€. But to make the print so that it sings feeling and emotion and is as expressive as a photograph can be takes time and to make the local adjustments on the level of individual pixels takes a considerable amount of care and time compared to making the same adjustments for an image to be viewed on the web or a 4x6" print. If the photographer used decent glass and technique, all imperfections show very clearly at those print sizes unless corrected manually. (No, I'm not talking about smoothing the skin which results in unnatural looking images but to fixing the contrast of certain details in such a way that they don't catch the eye as well as correcting variations in available light, choosing optimal black and white conversion settings etc.) Very slight changes to the tonality of the image can make a large difference in the emotional perception of the final print. Add to this editing work the cost of handling a large print, packaging it individually and shipping it (a customer isn't likely to purchase many such prints so it has to be priced as a single image), all of which takes time and is extremely boring work. This is why the photographer charges $150 or whatever (I think that's expensive but maybe, if they're good). Also, it may include some compensation for keeping around a medium format system (i.e. 10000 USD + lenses) for the group shot that will be blown out to a wall size print - this equipment isn't used for most of the images but nevertheless its use/presence involves additional logistics and costs that may not be possible to cover otherwise. It is natural that these extra costs should be paid by that customer who demands such a print rather than putting it into the base fee for everyone to pay.</p>

<p>Because the level of refinement needed for a small print is comparatively small, and if a large print is not likely, then it would make sense that the photographer perform rudimentary editing suitable for making the album but not the large print and provide jpgs of size that is suitable for reproduction of similar results if required. But if you're going to have a third party make a large print of one of the files, the photographer should have the right to prepare the file to their standard of refinement. This is why pay-by-print ordering makes sense. It saves unnecesary time and effort on the part of images that will not be printed or printed at large sizes, and since unnecessary effort is avoided, it saves the customer's money also.</p>

<p>Leszek, if I'm reading correctly, you were ticked off by the idea of pre-priced packages so much that you'd rather pay more to a photographer who listens to you and then quotes a price off the hat? I would hope that the quality of the product would play a decisive role rather than pricing structure especially if you are going to select the more expensive product in the end. If it was better, fine, but why then bring up the issue of pricing at all in conjunction with the story since you chose the photographer based on the quality of the photography. All the photographers offered the DVD, but the price level differed. Yet you chose the most expensive option. I have to wonder what we're supposed to learn from this. "As long as you provide a custom product, you can charge whatever you want." Or was it that the third photographer offered the DVD + album at a price higher than the album alone from the other photographers, but for less than the DVD + album from the other two? What does charging extra for late hours matter if the total price is going to be lower anyway? This would seem to me that it's customer friendly. Notice that a busy wedding photographer never has a Saturday with the family. If the spouse works during the week, they only have one day per week together. I think it's perfectly understandable that the photographer charges more for late night coverage since that's the time what most people in the western world consider the best quality time they have. Also, the later the night, the darker the existing lighting becomes and therefore there is extra work needed in form of lighting equipment etc. that might not be needed on a wedding where the photographer can leave after it gets dark. In my opinion the late night part of the wedding is the hardest to work with while preserving the atmosphere of the location. Obviously if the couple doesn't care about these night shots it makes sense they'd not have to pay for it. I think it's much better that the photographer charges based on time and offers the option of limited coverage but edits the images properly rather than asking the same amount of money for staying late and delivering unedited snapshots.</p>

 

[sfcole]

<p>On thing I find interesting is the number of supposedly professional photographers who constantly gripe about how their work is being undercut by "craigslist" newbies.<br>

What they fail to remember is that when they started, they had to scramble and do things for free as well. And if craigslist was available 20-30 years ago, they would have used it too to grab some business.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The pay per print only works when people order a large number of prints it kind of leaves the photographer rather short when they get a bit of a bad run where customers don't order many prints because their financial situation changed a few weeks before the wedding. Personaly myself I have done too many jobs that just relied on print sales and it is not something I would do again. Photographers need charge enough up front to at least pay for their time and cover expenses. With weddings at least there is a good chance that the couple will order prints because they searched for a photographer in the first place. With many other social type events the event organiser will often try to book a photographer with out any up front payment and allow the photographer to sell prints later in the evening, sometimes those events can be really good but there is nothing worse than working late into the night only to find that most are not interested in purchasing the photos even worse is when you count up at the end of the night only to discover that some picture have been stolen.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>The thing is--there were and are good reasons for using the 'profit from prints' model. Photographers using the model then and now were and are not greedy sharks duping poor customers out of their hard earned cash. Customers are not dim witted lemmings. They also have different needs, and there are different models to accommodate those needs.</p>

<p>I was reading a Rangefinder article the other day, about a photographer who is successfully using a model that does not give out files. The article said she employs a staff of about 30 and has 5 full teams available on any given Saturday. I assume no one is holding a gun to her customer's heads to force them to buy from her.</p>

<p>As with most things, there is also no need to go totally one way or the other. There is room for different models. As long as you can continue to get clients using your model, why not? There is also no need to be righteous about one method or the other. If it works for you, swell. If it works for the other guy, swell, whatever model it is.</p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>One detail: When delivering images, make sure you batch rename them so the customer doesn't know that the crappy ones you deleted are missing. Otherwise, they will think they have been cheated, and ask for the "missing" images.</p>

<p>I always rename mine YYMMDD_HHMMSS_S, where S is a sequence number for resolving conflicts with my second shooter.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>This is ridiculous, in no way do you have to give all your files; no matter how much the client as paid or shall be served. As a graphic designer I'm not giving away all my original design data/drafts/sketches/pictures/ etc...only the finished best, then the client chooses from the best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This isn't an apt comparison though. Would you give out the digital file of the final markup? The scraps are useless to your customer, but the digital markup is, much like the digital files produced from a photography session (even after the photographer has sifted through and picked out the best ones).</p>

<p>When we work with graphic artists, we get the digital file. This way, we can go to various printers. Also... it's the 21st century. We email brochures to our clients far more than we mail them or hand them out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One reason why I think having a relatively low "time and talent" price and then make most of the money selling prints is a good idea is that it offers the clients to focus their money on the images that they like. If the photographer makes a lot of good images <em>from that particular wedding</em>, they sell a lot of prints and make money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is a valid justification. If the customer doesn't like the proofs, he/she can just walk away without buying prints, and will not have spent a lot of money. At the same time though, when we bought a package of prints, we picked 2 poses and bought a slew of prints for a fixed price. If we went back and bought it again, we were stuck with that fixed price again, even though there was probably much less work involved with simply reordering the prints. Regardless, it would be nice if photographers offered both systems, and really were more transparent with the costs involved.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The problem comes when the photographer has spent many hours photographing on the wedding day and then put in more time making the proofs ready. They should be compensated for that time at least if they have done a decent job even if the couple decides at that time to only order small number of prints.</p>

<p>The graphic artist may hand over a finished file for printing but they will have been compensated for the time they spent doing the job. If a wedding photographer were to charge for the time they spent shooting the wedding and working to produce the proofs many people would be quite supprised at what that up front cost would be and many would not be happy having to order the prints they want on top of that price.</p>

<p>If the photographer were to shoot and hope to make that money from print sales the prints would end up to be very expensive to cover the cost of the photography and many would not like the idea. Many photographers like to do packages that include the shooting, processing fee and also an album or a number of prints.</p>

<p>When people have their car repaired they don't expect just to pay the cost of the parts they have to pay the labour as well. If you have a new kitchen fitted you don't just pay for the cabinets there are labour costs even if you are quoted an all inclusive price.</p>

[craig_big]

If you charge insufficiently for your time, and plan to make up profit on prints, there is a solid reason why this is an inherently dishonest system. It is designed to persuade clients on the basis of low cost up front, while downplaying the other costs on the back end. But when it comes down to it, it will cost the customer more money before it's all said and done. They will have to shell out more money to get the complete package that they want. It is the GOAL of this type of marketing to get people to commit because the charge is only $500, when the competition wants $2000, but then you charge an extra $1500 for all the little extras, like the album which wasn't included, the family portrait, the B&G portrait, the night-shooting charge, etc. That's what it's about. It's about showing the customer a lower price up front. It's about confusing and dazzling the customer with a lot of math and fees and additional costs. It's about convincing a customer through numbers alone that they owe you every penny that you are asking. It is deceit at the very core. When it comes down to it, if the client decides to purchase no extras whatsoever, they are only obligated $500. You say that's ok, but if it really goes down like that, you are losing money. You know this. The client knows this. So in a way, the client is not really obligated to purchase extras, but really they are. Remember, the client is afraid (to a degree) of suffering your wrath, the same way you are afraid of theirs. They will feel like being nice and buying some extras, because they know that's how you plan to make your money. This may work for your marketing, especially when dealing with low-budget-minded people, but it's not a high-class, professional way to present your business. The classy pro knows that they customer wants to know the total cost up front, and is willing to accept the price. And they understand that once the deal is made, you never address money again. It ceases to be an issue. The job just gets done at that point.

 

Finally, and this is to Ilkka Nissila, I don't think anyone here (I hope) is really talking about a DVD of unedited photos as the sole product. That's the low-level churn-and-burn that we've all heard so much about, and dreaded in our nightmares. I'm talking about a complete package where the client gets a photo album at the very least, and probably an extensive set of proofs or some large prints. In this case, it would be the last step to put the archives on a disc and hand it over to the client, with final versions of all pictures from the proofs and album on the disc. Basically, it's a record of all the work you've done, and it preserves that work for the client's future use, at their option. I'm not even talking about RAW's here, just the final JPGs. The thing is, many people just want to be able to put some pictures on their blog, or Facebook, or email them to their friends, or put a slideshow up on the computer. They might even print a bunch of 4x6's and pass them around to their friends. Probably not, but maybe. None of these activities are perceived (by the customer) to have any monetary value. You should make sure you cover all your costs and make a buck with all your services leading up to this point, and let the digital files go.

[StuartMoxham]

<p>It's not really dishonest if the customer is made aware of the additional costs up front. The customer can usually request a price list up front and add up for themselves if it is cost effective or not. It is no different than buying a basic PC and later deciding to do the upgrades rather than purchasing a better PC in the first place. You could order a base model car and later decide to have the AC, electric seats, luxury trim and alloy wheels fitted afterwards but it could end up costing more. On the other hand a couple could go for a luxury photography package because that is all that is available and not really want the expensive photo album and two parent albums because all they really want is a few 11x14s for the wall. Its really the same with any product a farmer may not want a fully decked out landrover discovery because s/he is going to use it for work and will likely spoil any luxury trim.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Here's a random question for the wedding photographers: do you ever get sick of it? Art, as it may be, is fun when you have a bit of creative freedom. When it gets down to business however, you're following someone else's schedule, being summoned to be creative on someone else's schedule, taking pictures of a subject that you didn't really determine or choose. You have a laundry list of must haves: the kiss, the walk down the aisle, the bridge getting dressed, etc.</p>

<p>I'll tell you about another perspective: the wedding DJ. On the spectrum of DJ work, weddings are amongst the most lucrative gigs you can pull. It's nice steady work. However, the bridge/groom gives you a list of songs to play, and when to play them. It is guaranteed to be music that you don't enjoy, or worse, utterly loathe. As a skilled DJ, you could mix, scratch, juggle tracks, backpeddle, you could dazzle an appreciative crowd.... but this is not an appreciative crowd. So you just hang back and throw the tracks on that the bride listed. It pays well, it's fun to be a part of a happy occasion, but often, it can be a *grind*.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Philip--not really. While some parts of photographing a wedding are not fun, the overall effort, I find, is still fun. It is enough to still keep me awake at times, the night before I shoot a wedding. I like the challenge of coming up with good images in the face of repetition, short time schedules, etc. I generally don't enjoy bad behavior from anyone, though.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Philip, my older son is DJing a wedding tommorrow. I asked him if he was going to give the B&G all the music files in case they want to listen to their music again in 10 years. He told me something I can't write on here. Glad I still shoot film and use a Hasselblad and only sub for two studios, so no afterwork for me. I don't care what files they give to who, just pay me for the job. I just did a digi job for a small Christening. I shot the job and made them a CD toward the end of the job while I was still there, 15 minutes, 2 CDs, got paid bye-bye, I don't care what they do with them either.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Phillip, if one is simply "cookie cutter documenting" a set of rituals that are similar one wedding to the next, then it could suck the fun out of it. </p>

<p>If one concentrates on the hidden human things I mentioned above while documenting what's happening, then each wedding is unique. That is a lot of fun IMO.</p>

<p>Also, creativity isn't just what you shoot, it's how you shoot it. That is up to the photographer.</p>

<p>I think there are some photographers that get into a rut because they repeat what worked before to be safe. Yet, once you master your tools and raise your level<br>

of self-confidence, you can reach out often, and do the unexpected successfully every time.</p>

<p>Set high expectations, and then strive to exceed them. It keeps you on your toes.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>" do you ever get sick of it? "<br /> Never.<br /> I help the couple with the schedule. Usually they ask for my advice since I've been doing this for awhile. It's second nature to me to get the "money" shots. I get along with the people at each wedding. How could I not get along on a happy day for all involved, at least it is with clients that hire me.<br /> No, it's not a grind for me. Especially now because I don't need to do many weddings each year anymore. <br /> This is my retirement occupation. I'm back at my roots using B&W film along with digital. I'm going to do it until I leave this earth. <br /> <br /></p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>Philip, my older son is DJing a wedding tommorrow. I asked him if he was going to give the B&G all the music files in case they want to listen to their music again in 10 years. He told me something I can't write on here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heh. For a wedding? Why? Is he afraid the world will learn his secret obscure track: "I do it for you" by Bryan Adams?</p>

<p>I tease... but I tend to find that many DJ's are quite willing to share tracklists. It isn't the tracklist that makes the DJ anyways.</p>

[herma]

<p>Nadine, this is a fantastic post! This surely got photogs juices flowing. Very informative at the same time. Lisa, I bet you didn't expect this much fervor from you post.</p>

<p>Just sayin'<br>

Herma</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Can anyone blame anyone else for trying to make the most from their time working? I don't think anyone is being taken advantage of. I also don't think that photographers are getting paid like rock stars, which is the impression you get from some posts here. I think people don't appreciate very well the amount of work involved, or the costs of running a business which are invisible to you if you're a salaried employee with full health and benefits. I also really feel that talented photographers have something quite special to offer. </p>

<p>It may be that customers end up spending more with a low up front price, no-dvd, pay for prints business model. Take a look around, nearly every where you look businesses try to get you in the door with low up front prices, and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not a pro photographer, but have done some wedding and portrait work on the side. I was surprised actually at how much people were willing to spend above the entry level package price for which they signed a contract. The thing is though, I never did any arm twisting. Actually my experience is that people are so happy with the pictures that the cost is much less an issue than it was before.</p>

<p>That said, I'm not for or against giving or selling digital files. It's simply a business decision that needs to be worked into your model for generating the income you need to.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>There are a great many armchair posters in this thread who (as Rob has just pointed out) have no notion of what it actually costs to run a photography business. I'm sitting at my desk on a Saturday morning (normal - because I mostly work seven days a week, like the other photographers I know) looking at March's accounts and I'm wondering how many tens of thousands of pounds my overheads will be this year, given my fixed costs and the price I pay for the beautiful products my clients expect and demand. Once I've considered that I can of course work out how much I have to bring in to offset that, and leave some profit, which must of course be enough to live on. Shock, horror!! How <em>dare</em> I expect to work my a*s off and earn enough to pay my bills! There are valid arguments for and against supplying clients with a DVD of images, and I agree that there are times when we must bend to the market - but not by selling our time, experience, and creativity at a price which panders to the inclinations of an often poorly-informed public. Thankfully my clients don't fall into this category, but I do make every effort to educate them as to the cost and time taken to provide what they ask for, be it a disc or a bespoke wall product. There are many kinds of photographers out there, and there are almost as many business models, each have their own positives and negatives, but I can tell you that none of them bring us 'easy money'. The hours we work and the sacrifices many of us make are unmatched in most other professions and a better point for some posters to consider is 'why do we do it'? It sure as hell isn't 'for the money'.</p>

[craig_big]

I think the last two posts are just preaching to the choir. I believe photographers already understand that photography is a quality product, and doesn't come cheap. I never met a photographer that was eager to lower the value on his or her service.