lindsay_dobson

<p>Ah, that explains the date query - no worries David, thanks for clearing it up. Have to admit I'm angry at the behaviour of the photographer who pulled out, he's blaming other photographers for feeding him misleading information about the participants and for telling him this is a scam - seemingly without any evidence. Or perhaps he suddenly gained a lucrative wedding for that date, and needed an exit visa. Either way his communication was less than professional. </p>

<p>Speaking of "having words" with photographers, funnily enough I have just done precisely that. Kathie is now aware of the wording of the discussion on the wedding photography forum she is referring to and it will now be clear to her that none of the participants suggested she had any intent to illegally harvest photographs for herself (though one participant suggested exercising general caution, probably due to a mixup over the date). The notion of 'scamming' was put to her by the photographer who pulled out - his own invention I suspect. I have politely suggested he develop some reading skills. </p>

<p>Kathlyn, I think there is a general presumption here that posters are in the US, despite this being a global forum. I am based in the UK with contacts in the wedding sector and I may be able to point you in the right direction. Feel free to get in touch: linds.dobson@virgin.net <br>

01903 741691</p>

<p>Shawn, the focus speed isn't always the issue, but the accuracy is at times unpredictable despite employing all available precautions and techniques. As you say, the speed of your assignment is important (and the kind of clients you work with - mine are not forgiving), but even on a fairly controlled fashion shoot the XE1 proved to be too much of a risk. For some reason my X100 is far more accurate and that does see pro use (on occasions where I don't have a chance to change lenses, but I can grab the X100 for a quick wide shot).</p>

<p>The focus accuracy is quite subject-dependent, and where faces/eyes are concerned (and their relative size in the frame) there can be problems with the XE1. There were other areas of the camera's performance which I also found disappointing. Each to their own - we should of course use kit which suits our own methods irrespective of others' needs or preferences. </p>

<p>Professional photography + 'mash the shutter'</p>

<p>.... given that the vast majority of my work (and the work of most of the professional people photographers I know) involves critical focus and mostly focus-recompose, this method is not really workable, particularly in a wedding environment where you really can't afford to miss key moments. I used to own an XE1 and I sold it because the performance was simply untenable if the camera were to act as a viable professional work tool, where we need critically accurate focusing which is consistent - the keeper rate from the XE1 on a professional shoot was pitiful to be honest (though the camera was perfectly adequate for casual walkabout photography). I now use the OMD for most of my pro-jobs and compared to the XE1 it's like night and day. </p>

<p>Eric, I am not disputing your son's abilities or potential. But if I were a customer and a photographer turned up with their child in tow I would likely view them as unprofessional. I would feel that their attentions are divided, which they would be since you have a responsibility to 'mind' your son at all times, wherever you are. You cannot be both child minder and professional photographer. I would wait until your son is at least 16. </p>

<p><strong>I've been considering starting a wedding photography business for well over a year now. I'm extremely comfortable with the camera, lighting, editing, etc. By comfortable I mean I've been shooting in the film business as my primary profession for 7 years now, and for intensive purposes have mastered high end DSLRs and my photographic style. I have not mastered lighting, but if there is one thing I have learned in the past 7 years; no matter how long I live or how much I shoot, I do not think I shall ever master light, for it is the only invisible thing we can see.</strong></p>

<p>There is a great tendency for many budding wedding photographers to try and run before they can walk and I am firmly of the belief that anyone new to wedding photography should not charge initially, at least not until they can clearly demonstrate that they can produce consistent wedding photography of a merchantable standard. So this creates the question of how you might go about getting that experience in the first place. The best route (but often the hardest to get into) is of course to try and assist an established wedding professional because on-the-job training is always the most valuable, and this may lead to second shooting opportunities which will help with an initial portfolio. Failing that, photographing the weddings of friends might be another option, or advertising yourself as offering a limited number of free weddings in order to build an image bank, with expectations set as appropriate. But even so, wedding photography is incredibly demanding and if there are particular areas where you're not confident I would also recommend some good training courses or seminars beforehand. And of course ensure you have some attractive products lined up so that you can at least gain some sales afterwards where possible.<br>

<br>

When you have very little to offer brides, the key thing is to engage with them in the right way because old-fashioned as it sounds "people buy people". If they like you and trust you then you are halfway there. But I would advise you to hold back a little on the "real photographer" line because you cannot yet support this with a credible portfolio of wedding photographs and if you set expectations too high then you are likely to come to grief. <br>

<br>

As far as advertising for portfolio building clients goes, start by putting the word out verbally, chat on Facebook, tell your friends and family, let everybody know that you are looking to do this for free to build your portfolio and I think you'll soon have some takers (screen the prospects carefully though). Social networking is very good for this kind of thing. Remember you are not a wedding photographer yet, so marketing yourself as if you are one already is not advisable at this stage.<br>

<br>

Once you have at least two good sample albums of two entire weddings to show your prospects, and if the photography is rocksolid, then that would be the time to start charging. How you then market yourself is a whole different ballgame.</p>

<p>Sim are fantastic, I use them and I know they'll be perfect every time. But I suspect they may be out of the OP's budget, if he's wanting something cheaper than Graphi. </p>

<p>By the way, if you're serious about wedding photography joining an organization such as the Societies will be fantastic for you. Questions such as the one you've asked here, and pretty much every other wedding related question has been covered on their excellent pro user forum. That's worth the yearly subs in itself. </p>

<p>Given that the majority of wedding photographers are now part-time, I'm amazed Graphi took that view, I'm sure they can't afford to be that selective! Fortunately there are many (better) suppliers out there, though I'm not all that familiar with the cheaper end of the market. I would advise getting yourself to a Photovision Roadshow (these take place all year round throughout the country) and attend a large trade show such as Focus (Birmingham) or better still the Societies convention in London each January. In the meantime Google is your friend. It might be worth you enquiring of GF Smith, or Mario Acerboni, I know their pricing is fairly low.</p>

<p>g dubs - I'll not keep reiterating what I, William W, Rick M and others have already said (in triplicate). If you're intent on this automated system then just go and do it - see how you get along. I personally can't think of any photographers who use this method (though a few years ago I did spot one who displayed his calendar showing which days were taken, but there was no option for the client to block out one of the free days - this of course obviates the "I am busy on that day" safety net, and a few months later he very sensibly took down his calendar). A step up from this would be to create an automated "enquiry form" where the client fills in a few details about their requirements, including the date and time, which you can send a personal response to. But once again, this gives you none of the vital information you need with which to determine whether you can realistically serve that customer or not.</p>

<p>I would wager those who do operate automated bookings are probably of the very low end churn and burn variety. The photographers who shoot 5 weddings per day at Gretna Green spring to mind, or the cheap wedding packages on some cruise ships (I've also seen a high volume low end portrait studio offer automated online bookings). But beyond that sort of scenario I can't imagine it working, it's also a potentially hazardous one if there are misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or surprises along the way. But it is sure to alienate many potential prospects, particularly if you hope to attract quality leads. I'm struggling to comprehend how you cannot see the folly of your proposed "reject" option - not the most attractive way of interacting with potential customers.</p>

<p>I have a shelf in front of my desk, it has just three things on it. It has a small pile of individual folders, one for each current client. Each folder will contain a sheet of paper with contact information and details of the shoot, a copy of the booking form and a copy of subsequent order forms and receipts. Sitting on top of these folders is a very important piece of paper - my Client Schedule. This takes the form of a grid, along the top of the grid there are spaces for the name of the client. Down the left-hand side is a list of each task which typically equates to a project - information sent/reservation fee requested/reservation fee received/date of shoot/processing complete/date of viewing etc etc. In other words I can glance at this Schedule and see exactly how far along every project is and if I need to chase anything. When the client gets in touch and we determine a suitable date, that date is marked with a red dot on the laminated wall planner. Once their reservation fee has cleared, the red dot is replaced with a green one. Then there is the most important item of all, called The Book - this is a large notebook and every time I take or make a client related call I put the details of that call into the book, then if I need to I can look back and see exactly what was discussed and when, and if I need to follow anything up. In other words when I come into my office each morning I only need to glance at the Client Schedule, my desk diary, and The Book. In less than a minute I will know exactly the status of my business - without having to turn on a computer or synchronise an electronic diary. And if I've left the client's folder in the car it's not a problem because all of their details will be somewhere in The Book.</p>

<p>I don't trust anything electronic. It's too easy for the thing to get lost, broken, or stolen. Plus I only ever make appointments from my desk.</p>

<p>I have a large leather bound diary on my desk. All of my appointments going at diary, photography or otherwise. If I were to have two separate systems then it would be too easy to double booked myself, and too much hassle to keep looking at two different diaries. So my photography work is entered into my desk diary in red. My wall planner however is only for photography assignments so if someone phones I can just glance up and immediately see when I'm free with nothing else cluttering up my view. Edit: to clarify, I mean that I only take X number of assignments on any given week, so I can immediately see which weeks would be no use for that client, then I can refine things by leafing through my desk diary.</p>

<p>You should just do whatever works for you.</p>

<p>Good points from Ian.</p>

<p>I will never use any automated systems - all of my sessions are different and may be in entirely different counties even. I have a fairly detailed pre-booking phone discussion with all prospective clients so that I can determine how much time will need to be applied to them, both during and after the photography. My service is very personalised and I would never permit anybody to put things in my diary themselves.</p>

<p>I agree with Ian, I would never let clients know my schedule.</p>

<p>I use a good old fashioned leather bound desk diary and wall planner. </p>

<p>Eric, there are some really fantastic Micro 4/3 lenses. I don't have the 12-35 but if it's anything like the 35-100 (my workhorse) it should be fantastic. Prime wise I love the 45 f1.8 and the PL25 f1.4. </p>

<p>No Tammy, not bad at all! Just double check with the photographer that the requisite permissions cover you. If not, perhaps the client can be approached and asked, in my experience it's very rare for somebody to say no. </p>

<p>Correct, such provision for second shooters or "Jo Bloggs photography and any photographers acting for Jo Bloggs photography" is normally written as such into the language of the lead photographer's contract. I say 'normally' but I'm beginning to suspect this guy is a bit casual and I suggest Tammy clarifies that such permissions were formally obtained. If not, as you say, she would need to gain consent before publishing the images.</p>

<p>There you go Tammy - result!</p>

<p>I think it's fantastic you're considering an organisation like The Societies (SWPP). There are other good organisations as well, if you have interests beyond wedding photography, or for when you become established or well-known. But for someone at the very start of their career the SWPP has a huge amount to offer including excellent training, mentoring, and a very active and helpful forum populated by highly experienced professionals. I am a Fellow of the SWPP (and the BIPP) so if you have any particular questions feel free to telephone me or shoot me an e-mail.</p>

<p>ASIDE COMMENT-<br /><em><strong>I think it diverges a bit in terms of harassment and trespass.</strong></em><br />So when in Scotland, I can "trespass" and "harass" until they feed me on single malt . . .<br>

<br>

I think you would get away with that Cuz! It's a wonderful ice breaker (pun intended). Actually I think it's unlikely you could be charged with trespass in Scotland unless you did actual damage to something ...</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong> I gave him the CF card on the first wedding we did and he returned it with the images on...which I was confused about. Tbh I consider naming someone on a website as a link, Google is in the top right corner on most peoples computers/tablets, it's not hard to find someone in a few seconds lol.</strong><br>

<br>

There are different approaches to this, depending on the circumstances. For example (in your locality) if you were an in-house photographer (in other words if you were under contract of employment by a business or company as a photographer, whether or not you took pictures in their studio or out on location) it is usual that Copyright lies with your employer and also in work-for-hire situations your employer may be able to claim the same, some wedding studios operate on this basis. However the most common scenario I have encountered is where the second shooter hands over his or her cards at the end of the wedding day and the lead photographer hands them back after download - how the second photographer then uses the images is dependent upon the Contract you have with the lead photographer. It's common for the second photographer to be allowed to use the images on his or her blog providing that it is not in any way implied that the images were taken independently, and also credit (and usually a link) for the lead photographer must be stated. And in addition the second photographer may not sell the images nor pass them onward. Occasionally there is a "noncompetition clause" whereby the primary photographer will try to limit exposure if the second photographer is geographically on the same territory. It really depends on what is agreed at the outset.<br>

<br>

I'm finding it difficult to determine why you sound reluctant to include a link, you really need to accept that your audience may even decide to hire him and I cannot see anything wrong with that (even if he is cheap). Put simply, as William W suggested once you have enough experience you will no longer need to use your second shooter pictures and your clients will choose you for your own particular style.<br>

<br>

As has already been said, a very polite and respectful approach, with the suggestion along the lines of what has already been set, will hopefully sort things out for you. And do get it in writing, so there are no misunderstandings further down the line.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>"OK! Thanks again, cousin. My head was muddled at the time of writing – I knew it was a “separatist thing” I just didn’t get what bit was separated from what other bit."</strong></p>

<p>It confuses us too at times William! (-: Actually with respect to photography I don't think there is any difference when it comes to Copyright or general usage, but I think it diverges a bit in terms of harassment and trespass.</p>

 

<p>He should have been clear with you Tammy, but in the future if or when you second shoot remember to ask the photographer to set out the terms in writing, or in an e-mail. </p>

<p>You may want to bookmark my Blog, under the Categories tab there is a "for photographers" section which contains quite a lot of articles relating to the business of photography and several which discuss legal issues such as Copyright and image usage, which may be useful to you in the future. The information given does of course relate to the laws of England and Wales only. </p>

<p>Did you read my reply Tammy? There is the key difference between the level of input you have applied to the wedding versus that of the lead photographer. Once again, irrespective of how many shots you consider to be your own, you would not have been at that wedding but for the time and often considerable acquisition cost and overhead which is borne by the business owner. You are not the business owner therefore it's unlikely that you would automatically retain the right to use the images as you see fit (irrespective of the fact that Copyright is 'likely' to be yours, notwithstanding work for hire arrangements etc). Therefore the level of effort, and expense, in providing that wedding (for the benefit of the second shooter to gain images and experience) does not end with you. Whether required by the lead photographer or not, it is also a matter of professional courtesy that you credit him accordingly. </p>

<p>In other words the terms of how and where you can use the shots are likely to lie with him. Therefore if he says no, you must consider that that is exactly what he means. As William W has rightly alluded, it really isn't that big a deal, surely? With the right approach it's not going to be that difficult to you to find other relevant opportunities, perhaps with other photographers? I would avoid using too many staged shots in your portfolio, unless you intend to be completely open with your prospects that they were not photographed at a real wedding.</p>

<p>To clarify a couple of legalities, The Copyright Act includes a section whereby "images which are commissioned for private and domestic purposes" (that would be weddings, portraits and some other forms of social photography) afford the subjects the right to decline publication of those images. This is dealt with in our Contracts via a clause, stating that the photographer retains the right to use the images for promotion etc. I know of very few cases were a client would exercise their choice here, but when you speak to lead photographer, presuming you are okay to use the shots you took, you would need to clarify that the relevant permissions exist. Incidentally there is no such thing as UK law, it is the laws of England and Wales. Scotland differs slightly.</p>