lindsay_dobson

<p>I think understanding your place in the market is very important, John, and targeting the right clients in the right way is vital if you're to succeed. You can be the most creative, innovative photographer in your region, but if you can't run a business and remain profitable then you won't get very far.</p>

<p>Agree with Simon. But we don't know how the wedding fayre organization came by the photograph. It's possible the OP's photographer may have entered into, say, a competition which granted the organizers/sponsors fairly broad use of the images submitted and the photographer may or may not have been aware of that at the time.</p>

<p>I'd take a common sense approach in the first instance and contact the photographer. Then sit down and clear your head about the 'transgression' and try and determine how you really feel. As Simon mentioned, a great many couples would be delighted that they, and one of their commissioned shots, was chosen for such prominence. But if you feel that the shot, and the association with a wedding fayre, portrays you in a disfavourable light then you would need to seek legal advice - that advice is one thing but embarking upon a course of litigation is quite another and something I would encourage anybody to try to avoid, any 'royalties' vastly eclipsed by any unrecoverable costs and time/energy applied.</p>

<p>Indeed. The reader could go to the main Forum page and list the relevant categories: Lighting, Digital Darkroom, Business of Photography, Website matters etc etc. And start saving - the overheads are at least ten times what the average newcomer imagines.</p>

<p>PS: Hello cousin! I bet it's nice and warm in the Southern Hemisphere .....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Technical skills are a pre-requisite so I'll not dwell on those, together with the creative vision Neil mentioned and the life skills covered by the other respondents. But above all, the ability to run and manage a profitable commercial enterprise is what matters most. This is something of a shock to the students who occasionally approach me for advice on 'how to be a photographer'. So much so that I've compiled some of their questions into a Blog article: lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=1166"</p>

<p>Success can be a fairly long road. Keep the day job for however many years it takes to understand this business, and in that time build on your skills, varied as they will need to be.</p>

<p>I think this offering will be something Bella can upsell to it's existing mid-market clientele. And I think a 'high end' client won't necessarily be tempted to approach an otherwise mass-market provider, and will continue to prefer the very personal, boutique style service that independent high end photographers provide.</p>

<p>Hi Marten, I used the standard 'kit lens' which came with the camera body - the 14-45mm. It's very good as kit lenses go, as you probably know the 4/3 system has a x2 crop factor, bringing this lens in line with my most used focal lengths. I might get the 17mm f1.7 pancake prime too. Panasonic build quality is superb.</p>

<p>When not working, it's a Panasonic Lumix G1. As Stephen said the Micro 4/3 system is a real innovation, and I love having a tiny lightweight portable camera with interchangeable lenses. In fact any lens suitable for a 4/3 mount will fit. I feel I have a miniaturised SLR, whilst the ISO capability of course doesn't match my 5D MarkII, it's not shabby either, light-years better than a point and shoot. There are plenty of shots on my blog taken with the G1, including: <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=976">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=976</a> and <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=1094">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=1094</a></p>

<p>A.P: there is nothing to suggest a definable 'brand' which says something about you and your style, and that clients will remember.</p>

<p>Nataliya,</p>

<p>I have a Copyright and Usage fact-sheet on my Blog which I can refer clients to if necessary. Obviously the salient parts are summarized in my contracts so there can be no misunderstandings: <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=188">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=188</a></p>

<p>Lindsay, I did not say that, in fact what I said above was "<em>Talent is definitely gender-independent</em>".</p>

<p>Nish - sincere apologies for mis-reading that!! Crumbs, I thought it didn't make sense (-: (-:</p>

<p>Good points about how female photographers view male subjects. I certainly agree that men often don't understand what it is that women find attractive in men and, and if I can be so bold as to say this, often believe we're only interested in physical bulk. 'Appeal' for women, can be subtle and hard to define. However I can make a good guess at what 'most' men look for when they first appraise a woman. Perhaps you've taken us a little closer to the reasons why a some people might prefer female photographers, in the context of how they see and respond to their subjects. Sven's point is interesting - can we tell from a set of images if the photographer is male or female?</p>

<p>I was reading on an other forum recently that there is, apparently, an increasing demand for male boudoir photography. But the guys are requesting female photographers. My (straight) male friends say that they wouldn't want to disrobe in front of a male shooter for a whole host of reasons.</p>

<p>Nish, going back to my last-but-one post, I must disagree that there are more women in technical posts 'today' because jobs are 'technically easier now'. To re-iterate, I believe it's down to more opportunities for women to enter fields which previously were male dominated due to the relative structure of our society at that time. Women who attempted to move outside of the box were, for a time, disadvantaged both in terms of their income, and the prejudice they encountered in the workplace. Times have changed and the role of breadwinner is no longer necessarily the priority of male household members, and employers are mindful of that, so the more technical jobs are becoming available to women in the name of equal-opportunity. This fundamentally explains what you're seeing. For you to say that talent is gender-dependant really doesn't make any sense.</p>

<p>I fully appreciate that there are differences between men and women, both good and bad - but I don't think it extends to one's computational abilities.</p>

<p><em>"Sorry, what dollies verses action figures, and what men think or don't think, has to do with the photographic question at hand escapes me."</em></p>

<p>Marc, it was a commentary on the (somewhat contentious) points Ryan raised regarding his views on 'the photographic question'. He gave his reasons, I responded by giving mine. My earlier response was along the same lines as yours - that I believe the talent is evenly spread and cannot be gender-dependent.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I almost forgot .... wasn't somebody called 'Hilary Clinton' running your country for quite some time, while the 'frontman' had his 'male bits' somewhere he shouldn't have? I wonder what side of his brain was dominant? Certainly not the technical side.</p>

<p>I've had a good laugh at Ryan's comments, reminiscent of the male dinosaurs in sitcoms. I'm sure Ryan isn't like that in real life though.</p>

<p>What is being overlooked here is the fight that women are still going through in terms of equal opportunities and equal pay in the workplace. In photography at least, we have some semblence of equality. Fundamentally - you can't argue that women have been subjugated through the decades and haven't had the choices that men have always enjoyed. Throughout recent history they've been tied to the home, into domestic roles that have had little to do with free choice and everything to do with society and tradition. Consequently there is an enduring belief that we must be inherently domestic creatures who are content with a 'gentler' approach to life. What utter boll*cks. As the world has changed and opportunities for us have increased, you'll see women emerging in every profession. But don't forget we're also largely responsible for raising families, running the home, <em>taking care of men</em>, and sadly we can't manage three full time jobs at once - hence our numbers in specialist occupations remaining consistently lower than our male counterparts. And as children, we're still conditioned to play with dolls and wear dresses - folks, please understand the difference between this and Ryan's insistence that females suffer from a cerebral deficiency! I could equally assert the old chestnut that 'most men are incapable of multi-tasking and so find it hard to juggle the demands of running a home'. In reality, most men are equally capable of all of this, it's just that they have been raised to expect somebody else to do it all for them.</p>

<p>I actually remember an instance in my childhood where I was given a toy baby and a doll for Christmas. I remember asking my mother why the giver had chosen those items. And my mother said 'because little girls like dollies'. I didn't want a s*dding doll, I wanted an Action Man and a model Ferrari.</p>

<p>My female friends are the most technical people I know. Many are photographers, from varied backgrounds - including design engineers, chemists, IT specialists. I myself am from an academic background and I'm from a technical family (military pilots, engineers, IT designers). Perhaps that's my point - if we're allowed to develop freely, rather than being conditioned into one role or mindset, then arguments like Ryans become moot, and the divide between the sexes might not be as great as we think - a notion which men like Ryan might find unsettling.</p>

<p>David, there are certainly some talented female child photographers around, and I'd agree that they out-number the guys. Perhaps parents feel that their children will be more relaxed when in front of a lady photographer. All that said, most of the commercial/advertising photographers I know are male, and they're extremely good. If you look at the different genres across the industry, there are probably more men overall. I was at a large wedding and portrait convention earlier this year and I think almost half were female. The year before, I'd guess around 30% were ladies.</p>

<p>I've been thinking about this too, and I'd say my favourite photographers are 50/50 male and female, with an age spread from about 35 to lates sixties.</p>

<p>Thank you Bill and Duncan for the kind words. I hope I'm not intruding on David's post by answering, but the brides are indeed beautiful, some of the shots are editorial so the girls are well-known professional models. There's no direct skin smoothing on any of them, although the lady looking out of the wood-store has a general diffuse glow applied to the whole picture. I don't have time to do too much work on individual pictures (I batch with my own finishing actions) - I find that if the lighting is right (soft, diffuse 'beauty light') then that in itself gives the skin a flawless and creamy appearance. If I remember correctly, they were all shot with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L . I've never been big on sharpening.</p>

<p>Duncan - all proof images are fully finished - the extra effort really does get you more sales. I've just finished a set from a portrait shoot - 100 proofs. 98 going into a panoramic Jorgensen book.</p>

 

<p>Fred, trimming your bottom line is the very last thing you should consider doing. In fact investing in your business, and more importantly yourself, is what differentiates the good photographers from the average ones. If you're currently only attracting low spending clients, then consider everything that Neil has said about improving your product and your value, perceived or otherwise. Marketing is an enormous part of our job - perhaps the biggest part - and you need to be good at it. After all, what's the point of striving to provide 'afforable' photography if it's not putting food on your table? Look around at the higher-earning photographers in your region and consider what can be done to improve your business. Alternatively, seek to bring in a high volume of low-spending clients, and draw up some marketing plans which will do just that.</p>

<p>Bill - what lovely words. I agree that each gender compliments the other.</p>

<p>As far as weddings go, I think it's inevitable (and understandable) that a Bride will prefer a female photographer to capture the more intimate moments of her preparations. I've noticed that a lot of male-owned photography businesses have introduced female co-workers for this reason. The same could be said of female physicians - there weren't many of those twenty years ago either. It is not simply the case that 'women hire women', as the OP has suggested. There are other occasions and many reasons why I (or a client) might sometimes prefer to work with a man. I hope this allays the OP's fears that we're putting you 'guys' out of business.</p>

<p>There is also greater financial pressure on us than ever before - households now generally need two full time workers in order to make ends meet. In that sense it's necessity which causes us to encroach upon what has previously been regarded as male territory. Photography happens to be a good outlet for many female talents, as Bill has said.</p>

 

<p>I virtually stopped enjoying personal photography for all the same reasons. I want to take pictures of the things I do and the people I see, without the whole 'photography post-mortem' conversation. I want to be inconspicuous. The usual point and shoot cameras don't do it for me, in IQ terms, but I recently discovered the G1, and suddenly I'm out taking pictures again ..... <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=868">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=868</a></p>

<p><strong>"I was amused at your comment because I don't think I've ever seen brides/grooms use a fork to eat their wedding cake."</strong><br>

I'm very confused by this. How else would one eat cake? </p>

<p>Joining an organization can be a great way of getting to know other photographers in your area - networking is very important. There are benefits to membership such as greatly reduced insurance premiums, legal assistance, and a means of keeping up with the latest products and developments. The SWPP convention is an enormous international affair and a chance to see anyone and everything, with several days of seminars and lectures as well as an amazing trade floor. They also offer members a 'mentor me' programme which may or may not suit you (most UK photographic institutions are decidedly 'old school'). </p>

<p>I personally don't place any emphasis on trade logos or qualifications - whilst there are undoubtedly some exceptional and well-qualified photographers out there, I know of too many others who bear letters after their names and produce work which is consistently average. Your clients should see your committment and professionalism from viewing your work and from the standard of your website and your own personal presentation. I'm yet to meet any client who has given a rat's a*s about certification. </p>

 

<p>No worries Steve, I'm English too, perhaps why I excel at sounding sternly school-marmish at times.</p>

<p>When I was concentrating on weddings one of my packages gave the option of a fine-quality album OR the disc of images. I wouldn't consider 'giving' the disc to clients just because they expected it - that amounts to grossly undervaluing what you do, as Lisa mentioned. I've found that my automotive clients prefer to buy the high res files (I have a minimum order of 5 images) but portrait clients much prefer bespoke wall-art products - they don't want the hassle of sorting out everything themselves. However I do offer a cost-effective 'web optimized' set of low-rez images, which are watermarked, and these are very popular (usually ending up on Facebook and such-like) as well as being great advertising for my business. These same files are a complimentary add-on to any purchase of full-resolution images.</p>

<p>Lisa, what you offer must be of benefit to both sides, not just handed out to appease a demanding (and understandably inexperienced) client base - if you feel the situation is one-sided then it's time to change things so that it's equitable to both parties. I've not run into any problems with clients demanding something I don't want to provide - what I do and don't do is clear at the outset and simply explaining why things are how they are is always helpful to the client. If there is an impasse then the prospect is welcome to go elsewhere, but that should rarely happen if you get your sales model right.</p>

<p>Steve Smith - I'll overlook your sarcasm because you've entirely missed my point, which is that most photographers work very hard and don't make anything like the living you imagine, just being able to meet our day to day expenses is an achievement - yet we're often condemned for trying to make any profit at all. </p>

<p>Craig, there are photographers who are doing just that, which to the greater extent has ignited this discussion. Read Lisa's opening paragraph. Many photographers feel pressured to deliver the goods for an unrealistically low price, others think photography is a means to a quick buck and a CD is the route of least resistence. That in itself creates a mindset in the eyes of the client. There are countless threads on that very subject. For those of us who do value our product, we often have an uphill battle getting that message through to our customers. That's what Rob and I were alluding to.</p>

<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>