lindsay_dobson

 

 

<p><strong>"I find it funny that photographers are expected to receive payment before delivering the product whereas just about every other <em>trade</em> does it the other way round."</strong></p>

 

 

<p>Photography is a custom, individualised and tailored product. I know that when I require custom goods or services, made or executed to my requirments, I am required by the supplier to pay for a consultation then I must pay in full at the time of order, otherwise work doesn't commence on my behalf. This is characteristic of 'trades' where many hours or even days of the artisan's time must be applied before a product exists, and it is not reasonable for that 'trader' to work on contingency or on spec, at the leisure of the client. In other areas of business retainers are a necessity also. </p>

<p>I won't comment on the pictures, but $260 for your session and a CD of images is very cheap. It seems to me that the OP didn't want to pay professional fees but expected professional images. Generally speaking, if you want exemplary service and beautiful shots you'll need to pay several times that for a photographer who is trained and experienced. </p>

<p>At this stage I'm interested in why the OP hired this photographer and how much was paid for the session and then presumably for the disc of images. Very often client expectations exceed the reality of hiring a low-cost photographer, as Marios said. </p>

<p>Richard, Google 'ProPhoto Theme for Wordpress'. That is what Vail is referring to. I use it, it makes everything painless.</p>

 

<p>Plastic Sandwich. Stunning quality, amazing leathers. </p>

 

<p>Indeed I missed that, I've just read the OP's (unwarranted) response to you. </p>

<p><strong>"His website pics looked pretty good, not the best, but certainly not the worst. But we couldn't afford the best."</strong><br>

<strong>"We spent a huge amount of money on those pictures and I think we deserve some of it back."</strong><br>

<strong>"We also asked for the pics in RAW format on a hard drive (no albums/prints) as my partner and I are amateur photographers and wanted to edit some ourselves. </strong><br /><strong>And THANK GOD we asked for them in RAW coz the pics were awful."</strong><br>

<strong>" ... the hard drive that had all our wedding pics on it stopped working and we lost all our images!!"</strong><br>

<strong>"So instead of writing him that "we are so disappointed" email we had to send him a "please could you re-send all our images" email."</strong><br>

<strong>"I was horrified and so shocked I was actually shaking."</strong><br>

<strong>"Because of everything that has happened - our disappointment with the images to begin with - we feel that we really want to get him back for breaking the contract". </strong><br>

<strong>"Do you think we have any legal grounds to sue him for this?"</strong><br>

<strong>"It is not in our nature to try and claim compensation from everything that goes wrong in our lives". </strong></p>

<p>There are a lot of contradictions there. Take a chill pill, act like an adult and just speak to the poor guy instead of sounding hell-bent on dishing out some retribution. He did you a great favour handing over the RAW files, most wouldn't, but then you lost them. If I go out and buy a disc of something, I certainly don't get a free replacement if I'm negligent enough to lose it. How did he respond to that request? I'm even wondering if the pictures were as awful as you feel they are, and I have to say that if you can't spend much then realistically you can't usually expect high quality images. </p>

<p>If he refuses to take the pictures down, show your contract to a solicitor (and demonstrate that you've explored 'reasonable means' of getting the shots removed from view, otherwise the solicitor will simply instruct you to do that). The solicitor might then, if appropriate, write a letter instructing him to do so. That does not cost much, but should be a last resort, not your first course of action born from of a desire for vengeance. </p>

<p>Lindsay (UK)</p>

 

<p>Maria, calm down please, I'm exhausted just listening to you! It's perfectly OK to have a strong opinion. But pause for breath for a moment and let me suggest that your friend (if one presumes she hired the photographer herself) was satisfied with what she saw when she viewed examples of that photographer's work. Maybe she did some research and compared that work with the work of other photographers and was still satisfied (not everyone can judge a good shot from a terrible one) or maybe she did none of those things are hired the first person she came across. Perhaps your friend couldn't afford a more experienced and better prepared photographer, or maybe she just didn't want to pay the going rates for one (that is pretty common these days). Either way, Caveat Emptor. My point is there have always been bad photographers (and I am old enough to remember) and there are all sorts of clients out there, some are discerning, some who are happy with the sort of images that you or I or the next person might find completely unacceptable .....</p>

 

<p>Yes, it was very normal and traditional in format. To use Mark's phrase, it was completely 'run of the mill', which is what we expected. It's not completely unheard of over here, at least in certain circles, for the man to refrain from taking a ring (although the majority do have one). But otherwise, a bog standard wedding by general British standards. <br>

I would have loved that tiara though Mark (-;</p>

<p>I'm pleased you enjoyed my cousin's wedding (I am not 'connected' in any other way, being from the Northern and distinctly working class side). The standard protocol here is for the groom to wait (with the best man) at the altar, then the Bride makes her entrance usually on the arm of her father and they proceed together up the aisle. </p>

<p>Jorgensen prices have gone up notably from last year, so you could try the Seldex Gallery range, very nice indeed and more 'affordable'. You can get them through Colourworld here in the UK. Otherwise you could look at GF Smith.</p>

<p>Brides often think they know what they want, but once they start visiting photographers and gaining a solid education in product value and the wealth of options which might be available, their views (and budgets) often change dramatically. For example recipients of digital files who end up with home made albums which are poorly constructed and reproduced often come back to the pro to ask why their pictures are so 'bad'. Explanations before the fact help to inform customers as to the benefits and disadvantages of certain products and why pricing is what it is. I wonder if any of the sample group have even been through that process. In my experience many clients are unaware that image colour and quality will vary between monitors and print shops - there is a belief that all prints are equal and their home printer or local supermarket will generate optput just like that seen in professional albums and wall products. For this reason being 'led' by surveys such as this could be a disservice to our clients and in my opinion is contributing to the general downward spiral we're seeing - however this 'survey' seems to represent the low end of the market, but that does not remove the part that client education must play particularly with regard to photographer overheads and the huge time investment we make, before and well beyond the wedding day. Many customers are allowed to believe that wedding photographers just work for 'one day' and albums and edited files just pop out of a computer with the press of a button.<br>

I believe that some guide to pricing is usually important to most customers, 'prices from ...' is sensible in my opinion. </p>

 

<p>Matthew, under the 'Learning' section (blue tab at the top of the main forums page) you'll find a ton of stuff about the business of wedding photography. I suggest you start there. Supplement your learning with seminars, videos, books, and lots of practice. You say you've not charged for your work but have covered 50+ events - ? I'm not sure what that means but your post demonstrates you're very much a beginner at the start of a long road. Don't take on any weddings until you're really confident you can deliver the goods - or start by covering weddings on a no expectation basis, for free, and for couples who otherwise wouldn't have a photographer of any kind. Build a strong portfolio before you start setting any pricing. Good luck.</p>

<p>The speed difference is debatable, and I certainly wouldn't pay an extra £300 for it. The size and weight of the Canon was a bit off-putting as well, given that we may on occasion want the lens for some of the more candid assignments. I just feel that the Canon lens is absurdly overpriced. </p>

<p>The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is an exceptional lens. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC) is very good too if you don't need VC/OS and in my opinion is a far better performer than the VC version.<br>

If you'd like to see some recent (and varied) shots with the Sigma (very low light, hand held etc) you can see them here (autofocus is fast, snappy, and incredibly accurate too, as is colour and contrast, I prefer it to the more expensive Canon equivalent): <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=2371">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=2371</a></p>

<p><strong>"I am still very big on creating the banquet and sloppy with the washing up . . . Joking aside tailoring "the inside" to better efficiency is a great thought thanks a lot – I am on to doing just that - to be more back-end efficient."</strong></p>

<p>Ah, Cousin William, I fear I am too detail-oriented in all the 'wrong' ways, hence taking a hard line with myself this year. I must try to faff less and take shorter meetings, which will undoubtedly free up more shooting time and preferably a bit of leisure time too. Though in all honesty the recession hasn't really hit my market much, if at all. My prices are going up this year as normal (as have those of all my suppliers). Taking the luxury car analogy, my local Porsche dealership is thriving, as always, in terms of overall sales. But they've lost a number of existing customers to the independent garages when servicing and repairs are required - the indi technicians have the same skills, tools, and training, but lower overheads and more realistic pricing. So really the canny Porsche owner is just doing away with some of the garnish. I have no idea how that translates to the photography biz this year - but there will still be customers who like all the trimmings. Mine might not get Tattinger at their viewings, but they will get a good sparkling Chardonnay from a local vineyard.</p>

<p>The luxury car market is changing for a number of reasons, it's not simply recession led - in fact it's Toyota's/Lexus feature-laden high end models which are booming - less costly than a Mercedes but not exactly cheap. Cars are, for the most part, a necessity and current economics may dictate which model a purchaser chooses when financial prudence kicks in but photography does not require the same immense capital outlay and those customers who value a high quality high end product are not downscaling their photography choices for the same reasons they might choose to moderate their choice of car. The lower end of the photography market may well suffer in the coming year as their client base are most likely to trim their outgoings.</p>

<p>However all the good business people I know are thriving with bookings increasing each year and prices remaining stable.</p>

<p>If the work you produce is quite clearly beyond the capabilities of Joe Public then you have little to fear from amateurs who attempt to set themselves up as professionals. I stress that client education is, and will continue to be part of my business model.</p>

<p>My client group are higher earning professionals who seem largely unaffected by the economic downturn. The manner in which I network is key to gaining the attention of my target audience. Raising something William mentioned - my clients receive a tailored personalized service which ensures the experience is very pleasant for them and the relationship does not necessarily end on delivery of the product.</p>

<p>However I need more hours in the day or several pairs of hands. Consequently 2011 will be about improving efficiency.</p>

<p>This thread is a pleasure to read - fun, informative, and full of great pictures of adorable pets! Thanks to Allan for bringing a lighthearted but relevant subject to the forum, it has certainly made me smile. </p>

<p>Pet photography is challenging and unpredicatable for all the reasons mentioned. But as is clear from the accounts on these pages, it is also immensely rewarding. I run a pet photography business alongside my portraiture business. I'm in the UK and although we love our pets very much sadly we are far less inclined to have them photographed than our cousins across the pond. I hope this will change in time.</p>

<p>A variety of 'squeakers' can help gain the attention of a dog. Bear in mind that after three or four squeaks the dog is no longer interested in that particular noise and a different 'squeaker' or 'quacker' needs to be employed. And another, and another .....</p>

<p>What things do we 'take for granted' Mukul?</p>

<p>Makeup? Daintiness? I'm not sure what you mean. Does it offend you? Or do you think it's generally counter-productive in terms of 'being taken seriously'? You know it is possible to wear makeup, appear feminine, and understand technology. I'd hate to think that in order to be viewed as 'competent' that I'd have to grow a penis ....</p>

<p>Are you saying you need a little more time to 'evolve'? Fine (-:</p>

<p>I think great strides have been made, but there's some way to go. I wouldn't want to wipe out the fundamental differences between the genders, but I do hope for some further adjustments in how 'women and technology' are viewed.</p>

<p>I was talking far more recently than the 1970s, I'm sorry to say.</p>



<p>May I chime in for a moment, as a woman. I have been a member of Photo net for many years. I used to contribute to this sub forum, but found it a little macho at times which eroded my enjoyment somewhat. The Wedding forum on the other hand seems to have an even spread of male and female contributors, and in my observation some immensely technical women are members. I consider myself technical also. <br /><br />A few weeks ago I read a thread in this forum asking why there seem to be few female photographers here. The responses from the male contingent were many and varied. I was genuinely appalled by some of the views aired. That is when I made the decision never to financially contribute to my Photo net membership again, though I do still read the Wedding forum and I hope that what I say is helpful to the posters there.<br /><br />I am not saying that Photo net is hostile to women. Overwhelmingly it is not, but some of the comments I've seen are not acceptable. Why is that? Only in recent history have women been afforded the choices and rights that our male counterparts enjoy. I know it must be very difficult for a man to appreciate what it's like to be a woman both socially and in the workplace. I remember a time, not so many years ago, before I decided to become self-employed, when it was considered perfectly okay for whichever institution employed women to impose contractual terms which would be anathema to a man, and morally repugnant a few years later. I have spent my female existence knowing that in many professional and social situations I may be judged and patronised according to my gender. And at times I have been attacked for having an appreciation of all things technical, on the grounds that this is not acceptable female behaviour. I've given up on car forums, but by and large photography forums are welcoming to women.<br /><br />Some of my dearest, closest friends are male, and there are so many wonderful men here on Photo net who selflessly share their knowledge with all. But for the reasons I have already discussed there is and always will be a contingent who make comments which, for the reasons I have outlined, can and will genuinely upset a female viewer. No man can possibly appreciate the insidious and chronic sexism that most women have been subject to throughout their lives. This is not something I can easily put into words, but at best it can be irritating and at worst it can be devastating. Now I am not saying that extreme exists in any of these fora. But some of the comments I've seen have made me angry at times as the perception of women appears distorted and unhealthy.</p>

<p>I occasionally teach photography, and I remember a friend suggesting that his son (who apparently wants to be a photographer) take some lessons from me. The response was 'no way, I'm not interested in some woman showing me how to take pictures of flowers'. Clearly the little cretin hadn't even bothered to look at my website or read my Blog. What hope have we if this kind of thinking still persists?</p>

<p>Another reason why there aren't many female forum members is because, having finished our day's employment, we come home to a mountain of washing, cooking, domestic paperwork, and 100 other chores. There are of course exceptions but I think it's true that the majority of male partners will be down the hallway tinkering on the computer while all this is going on. Would their wife or daughter be welcome to join them? Probably not - it's man's stuff after all. Perhaps some girls fail to develop a techie brain for this very reason.</p>

<p>Contratulations Phil! But make sure you read the 'small print'. For example, National Geographic may reserve the right to use the image as and when they please, without compensating you.</p>

<p>I met a student earlier this year who believes that her penchant for <em>artista</em> transcends the boring necessities of technical application and understanding, and the business world is similarly trivial because her work will no doubt appeal to an elite niche market who will pay whatever she asks. This young lady is living at home with Mum and Dad, and has yet to experience the world of mortgages, rents, and utility bills. I've not seen her provide a single merchantable piece of work, and indeed she felt that I didn't 'get' her work. She doesn't want to assist with anyone, because all the photographers she's seen produce, in her opinion, ordinary stuff which has no appeal to her artistic inclinations. I wish her luck, it sounds like she has an interesting and fulfilling hobby, one where 'commercial compromise' has no place. Let's hope Mum and Dad remain easy-going.</p>

<p>And on a point John raised - Danzel, don't elicit the opinions of friends and family, get your work critiqued by experienced professionals, I think this might have been mentioned already but join a photographic society (I think it's WPPI in your neck of the woods) and make the most of the seminars and training they likely offer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would say that many newer photographers completely forget to include what it costs them to live (or 'exist') which ultimately adds to the overhead when one is self-employed. And most fail to complete one simple exercise - that is to add up those costs to the cost of running their business over a year (down to the last postage stamp). That's the reality, when photography is your sole occupation.</p>