juanita_ramirez

<p>Lightscribe.</p>

<p>And $150 for a Lightscribe drive is highway robbery. I got one (external drive lightscribe) at Officemax last year for 60 bucks. Watch for sales. I heartily disagree that you either take it to a shop or use a Sharpie. Lightscribe looks good, and doesn't force you to charge your clients an extra 50 bucks a wedding to cover the printing on their CD.</p>

<p>I've never done the print-directly-on-CD printers. Maybe I'll have to look at that.</p>

<p>Senor,</p>

<p><strong>"it's not up to a photographer to decide the employment status of persons under their employ"</strong></p>

<p>While what the employee does and how they are compensated may help courts/IRS determine whether they are an employee or an IC, most temporarily employed second-shooters are legally going to be ICs. What I didn't express as clearly in my earlier post is that the primary shooter <em>could</em> hire you on as a true employee, but it's a greater cost and inconvenience for her and so she will most likely ensure that your compensation, benefits, working times, equipment use, and other factors clearly show an IC relationship.</p>

<p>http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179115,00.html<br /> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html</p>

<p>These links help to explain that there isn't a hard and fast rule in the USA for determining employment status, but in my own reading (which is not a legal opinion) most second shooters fit safely within the IC column.</p>

<p>Feel free to provide contrary authority if you find additional insights. I read over your New York state labor commission link and I'm not thoroughly convinced that even under NY law (haven't read the actual cases, of course) a second shooter would generally fit many of the elements of a true employee. No single factor is dispositive, and I think I could successfully argue that the weight is still on the side of being an IC.</p>

<p>As such, OP, I think you should still consider carrying insurance--you might be covered you might not.<br>

Also, do you shoot for anyone else? Do you maintain your own business?</p>

<p>1. In practice, if you are only working here and there for a photographer as a second shooter there is no way she is going to jump through the hoops to make you an "employee." Your status will be that of an independent contractor. It's simply too much work for her. If you aren't willing to do that, she'll find one of the other zillion kids begging to get a second shooter job.</p>

<p>2. Get liability insurance. I'm not talking errors and omissions coverage (yet). Here's why. It's cheap. 130 bucks a year will get you a million dollar policy. That way when a light stand falls on someone and splits their skull open you're covered. It only protects you against big accidents, but those are the ones that will bankrupt you or your business. Some venues require at least a million (big markets sometimes 2 million) in coverage to even shoot there, so it's not a bad idea.</p>

<p>With regard to E&O coverage--like I said not a bad idea, but I don't carry it. In the case of all cards failing or some other terrible happening, money really isn't going to make the couple happy or whole anyway. My liability for a mistake here may be in the thousands (but not tens of thousands of dollars) and for me that's an acceptable risk. I think it's actually easier to work out a deal that includes monetary compensation plus doing more photos than a deal that involves the insurance company and a claims adjuster. (I should mention I also have a close family member who is an attorney so I don't get as spooked by the threat of suit as some others. YMMV)</p>

<p>(I will begin by assuming you are not shooting black and white film on the front end.) If I'm shooting digital and I have a choice of either leaving it in color or changing it to black and white, I usually only change it to black and white when my color balance is so poor that it simply looks bad in color.</p>

<p>In my observation, generally, (though not in all cases) when wedding photographers change their photos to black and white it's almost always where they would look bad in color. Think dark churches with mixed lighting, dark reception halls, etc. In these situations the photographer can either choose to give the client a color photo that honestly doesn't look that great, or a desaturated black and white photo that looks pretty good.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean that all photos that are changed to black and white were technically weak. Certainly there are artistic reasons to choose to make a certain photo black and white.</p>

<p>In the end I don't give out very many B&W photos. That said, 85% of the time that I <em>do</em> use black and white, I use it to cover mistakes, and I assume that many other photographers that use black and white are doing the same. One here or there is great, a majority of photos being changed to B&W probably is not. Use it judiciously, but there's nothing wrong with a black and white photo here or there. There are even rare times where a photo looks fine in color but rendering it in black and white gives it a certain unique beauty.</p>

<p>Parv,</p>

<p>Here's the deal. Unless you were the bride's mother being accused of big-spending, who cares. This is a third-hand story. Only one person knows the actual individuals behind the scenes and even he may not know them that well. </p>

<p>He did clarify that it was the MOG, but again, doesn't affect anyone's analysis. Most of us are busier thinking about how to answer the meaty part of the question rather than the minutia of who paid for what. Since in most cases the MOB pays (though in fact the FOB probably pays in many cases and no one gets bent out of shape about that distinction) I myself wasn't worried about the distinction.</p>

<p>Frankly MOB or MOG is as anonymous and courteous as "Doe" where only one person here even has any connection whatsoever with the people. I see your point. But here this assuming it was the MOB offends no one--with the possible exception of the OP who I'm sure is only minimally offended. </p>

<p>parv,</p>

<p>I made this mistake. I could have double checked who paid, but I didn't see how it would affect my analysis of the situation. I still don't.</p>

<p>Agree with David Scott. Not all albums are flushmounts make out of digital files. She's entitled to do what she wants with the prints (not including duplicating them) including calling the neighbors over to burn them in a voodoo hex ritual aimed at the photographer.</p>

<p>The client was simply poorly informed and didn't understand the <em>kind </em>of photographer she was retaining. Clearly this guy was part of the crowd that charges 1)big up-front fee and 2)big back-end fee. There's nothing wrong with this if you can back it up with skills. Further, as a person who charges a big fee, he is accustomed to being able to order guests around and not be questioned. That's fine, but when one investigates a photographer they should know that. If fact, I know a photographer in my market who gets decent photos and tells the bride up-front that he will be in charge of where the cake is placed. He wants to ensure he gets the best possible light for the cake-cutting and so tells them where to put the cake.</p>

<p>Really there's nothing wrong with this approach--it can help to ensure the best possible photos for the cake cutting or whatever else. I personally dislike these kinds of heavy-handed approaches because I believe there's a balance to be struck between getting the most perfect photos, and actually letting the B&G/others enjoy the day. Either approach has its adherents.</p>

<p>If the MOB didn't understand the kind of photographer she hired, it's her fault. She also should have asked more questions about the photographer.</p>

<p>One area where I can feel for the MOB is where the photographer prohibited other cameras. This is almost always allowed and if the photographer wants to do something out-of-the-ordinary, he has a duty to affirmatively warn others. His lighting slave setup is no excuse. He should turn off the slave function or get something else if his equipment can't handle a flash or two in the background.</p>

<p>Because he prohibited other cameras, he left the family without any choice but to buy his photos if they wanted photos of the wedding. Because of this, whether or not the MOB bought the photos gives me no meaningful information about whether they we acceptable or not.</p>

<p>In short--buyer beware. Watch out for primadonna photographers who think it's "their" wedding.</p>

<p>Glad to hear everything worked out alright for you--and without much cost. Card failure is one of the most terrifying things.</p>

<p>If you haven't already, you should take this card out of circulation. Even if it seems like you format it up and everything's fine, in my experience it's very likely to fail again.</p>

<p>I agree with David Schilling that you should ask to see several weddings and make a decision based on that.</p>

<p>Years of experience, working for an established studio, or other factors will not give your clients meaningful information about the skill of the photographer. Only seeing a significant amount of photos from a few different weddings with different lighting circumstances can really clue you in to the skill of your photographer.</p>

<p>With a big studio, you might not be getting the "named partner," to actually shoot your wedding. You might just be getting an inexperienced associate. In a situation like that you need to be extremely careful, because they may present the portfolio of an experienced professional and then send the inexperienced kid out to your wedding. On the flip side, I have seen very experienced "professionals" whose business skills have allowed them to remain in the industry for a number of years but whose photographic skills should have kicked them off the train a while back.</p>

<p>Certainly one always has to be careful about hiring a new photographer with no formal studio and little reputation, but, my point is that even hiring an established studio isn't an automatic guarantee of good work. Always look at the portfolio. Even a studio that produces technically sound photos may have an old-mannish artistic flavor that will not be appealing to your personal style.</p>

<p>My ultimate point is, tell clients honestly how long you've been in business. If you shot one wedding 5 years ago and 2 weddings 4 years ago, tell them that you didn't do much business a few years ago, but talk about how things have taken off for you in the last year or two. Tell them how you have a fresh perspective and that you are more responsive to the current photography trends. I think it's a great chance to tell your clients to look at your recent work and decide if this is something they want. If they are harping on experience, I would tell them to compare your work to what they see at some of the big studios and make a decision.</p>

<p>I always win when compared apples to apples against the big local shops. Explain that when you are the only one doing the work you have a lot tighter handle on quality control. Explain how you have a both good technical skills and a fresh vision. It think it's actually much easier to sell your youthful vision and technically sound photos against "30 years experience" and a lecture on why a reasonable person couldn't possibly pass over an established studio.</p>

<p>Don't let the [naysayers] get you down.</p>

<p>I have not qualms with telling people to look at portfolios and thereby letting clients discriminate against those who have weak portfolios. If someone asks me about another photographer I will give an honest assesment. I don't have a problem, however, with selling myself favorably against my competitors. That's a reasonable choice. You don't have to tear down competitors to explain why you might be the better choice.</p>

<p>There's a balance between "machine gunning" and "I set this shot up perfectly, it's beautiful, but my autofocus failed and they had their eyes closed so now this shot is worthless." I am of the school that carefully sets up shots, but then fires off a couple of each pose as insurance against closed eyes, funny momentary expressions, or focus failure (I virtually always shoot wide open on prime lenses, so this becomes a big big deal). </p>

<p>There's a balance to be had, and throwing out terms like "machine gunning" is counterproductive IMO. One of the advantages of a digital camera is you can pop off a couple extra when you are shooting at f1.4 to insure yourself against someone moving a quarter inch during a posed shot. Your style, choices, etc. may vary.</p>

<p>Not a big deal. You live and learn. We do unlimited packages, and it actually works out really well. Ironically, a lot of the time the unlimited packages actually end up using less time than the lower-end packages. On the other hand, sometimes the unlimited packages end up with situations like yours (family photos) and I have to spend more time shooting. In the end selling unlimited with full rights makes me more money than my competition makes selling prints and so if one or two weddings end up being less profitable (though still quite profitable) than the rest that's no biggie.</p>

<p>Here's how I approach family photos. I figure my money is made based on my time and I'm satisfied with that. I'm hired for the day and I don't complain. When they ask about how to get their photos, I give them a pitch about "well, the bride and groom will have a DVD of full resolution files." If you are close enough you feel comfortable hassling them to get the files then you can print those. If you'd like to avoid bothering them, then here's my card with a link to my ordering site. We still get a decent number of print orders this way. </p>

<p>My business model makes me good money and gets me great referrals from satisfied customers. I don't push prints as hard because my clientele are the kind of folks who think that backend prints are a rip-off, and selling inflated prints of their event that they already paid for is a borderline dishonest practice. (This doesn't mean that selling backend prints is, in fact, dishonest, but some of my clients feel that way. Instead of sitting them down to frankly "educate" them, I just sell a package that they feel is more acceptable.)</p>

<p>On the other hand, they aren't afraid to pay decent money up-front for excellent quality work, and I have no problem booking as many weddings as I can handle. I recognize that traditional studios have a different business model and some are successful with back-end prints and a brick and mortar store. That's fine too. I guess I have just grown weary of David Schilling's endless suggestions about the superiority of a traditional studio and the superiority of the backend print sales business model. </p>

<p>Do what works for you. Times change and some client attitudes change. Some will need to adapt others may not, but I'm hesitant to recommend that any single business practice is the one-and-only way that you can be successful running a photo business. Some are better at sales, some are better at cutting unnecessary costs, some are even better at actually taking photos. Do what works for your personality and strengths.</p>

<p><em><strong>despite what your reprint license says about the Client not altering images</strong></em></p>

<p>what? Do people actually make contracts that say the client cannot alter the images? If I pay a custom cabinetmaker to create beautiful polished Oak cabinets and install them in my home, and then I decide to paint them white with cheap acrylic paint is he going to send his goons to my house to beat me up? Sure it's ugly, and maybe it even reflects poorly on him, but being this uptight will lose you more customers than your reputation will gain.</p>

<p>I wouldn't hire you. You'll come on for a while, generally do a mediocre job, learn the trade, and then go compete with me in the same market. </p>

<p>If you can get a job doing post-production at some sweatshop that will help you to hone you Photoshop skills and make a small amount of money to survive on. With the rest of your time, see if you can assist for free (I don't even take on free interns for the reasons above) and get someone to show you the ropes. Having a formal photographic education will seem a little bit worthless at first, but when you're a year out, it will put you miles ahead of compatriots who didn't get a photo degree.</p>

<p>Few studios will hire you, and if they do they won't pay well. Going out on your own earlier than you'd like may be your best option. Necessity is the mother of invention or something like that. It sucks, and you'll screw a few things up along the way, but hopefully that photo education will pay off and you'll get enough quality images to make your clients happy. Just remember when you're shooting a wedding, you don't just "turn in" one photo, you're expected to turn in a bunch.</p>

<p>You should never give the RAW images without the full-resolution JPGs, but I give them an archival copy of the RAW images (converted to DNG) and say "make a backup copy of this, and put it someplace safe, you might want these someday." Either way, I want them to be responsible for keeping a set of the "negatives" around in case I die or something and they end up wanting those RAW files.</p>

<p>From a pure business standpoint, back in the day when there was only one copy of the negative you didn't have to give away the negative, and people could sell prints on the backend. That doesn't resonate today, nor should it. If you're shooting well enough to charge money, your JPGs should have adequately correct color that you could take them to the absolute worst lab in town (which is where they will take them if they get the files) and still get decent (albeit perhaps not optimal) print results.</p>

<p>I don't care if the images make it down to Grandma. Why else would they buy the DVD. I don't care if some old man claims my work. He's a liar, and affects my business--how much--zero. Grandma isn't out getting me referrals, that's the province of the B&G. I don't deliver disorganized discs. I have a disc of JPGs and a disc of RAW, and I tell them RAW is for archival purposes only. I'm not particularly worried about the losing the profiles to read those photos. If there's enough interest in extracting that data, then options will exist.</p>

<p>Honestly, it's fine you want to preach about why you shouldn't give away the RAW images, you have most of p.net here to back you up, but that doesn't make it the only possible valid opinion or option. This is from someone who makes a bona-fide living off wedding photography. I'm no weekend warrior.</p>

<p>I give a handful of tweaked JPGs, and the other full-resolution JPGs. I also give full resolution, RAW images. Yep. That's because I take images out of the camera that are (surprise surprise) properly exposed, and in focus. If they aren't perfect they never even see the light of day. I'm not afraid to let them keep RAW files for posterity. I don't want to responsibility the come up with their RAW files in 40 years. That's their deal.</p>

<p>It surprises me that people who have been in the industry for a long time use post-production as such a crutch. Anyone who has been shooting weddings for real money for more than 2 years should have very very little to do in terms of color correction. They should have next-to-nothing to do with exposure correction. They should be culling out any out-of-focus images.</p>

<p>You're free to hold back your RAW images, and you should if your RAW images reflect poorly on you, but I honestly think that every photographer should be striving to get to the point where they feel comfortable giving the (sorted out for bad ones, obviously) RAW images to a client with almost no post-production. What people call "art" today (speaking of post production work) people in 20 years will think of as gimmicky at best, and as pure garbage at worst. Now, I recognize that you make your money today, but I am honestly floored to see people who have been in the industry such a long time who seem to think they can't produce a decent image without tweaking the colors and exposure.</p>

<p>I also think that a lot of post-production work makes your photos incredibly dated. If they have the RAW images they can reprint the files again in 10 or 20 years when they realize that vintage backgrounds and yellow skies are really lame. There's a lot of reasons to not give away your RAW images, but I thought I'd give you one why you should.</p>

<p>eBay poppers will be fine for a small reception center. As a bonus, pair those with an inexpensive non-TTL flash and you've got a setup that can "walk off" without consequences. I usually set mine up in a strategic corner and leave it there all night. Practice using it before the event. You generally don't have to adjust your settings that much until you totally switch the angle you're shooting from. If you're setting up shots carefully and thoughtfully, you should have time to tweak the settings/take a light reading/chimp before you start shooting from a different angle.</p>

<p>Annoying, but not a big deal. Comment on their photos, try to show ownership, and let it go. There are more fish in the sea. Like Tina and Cliff said, throwing a fit is worse than doing nothing.</p>

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>I agree on the honey/vinegar deal, but I think this might actually be a male/female problem. This isn't a comment on anyone specifically, but I think that Aunt Mae is more likely to pick on a female photographer who she feels she can intimidate than a male one who she feels she cannot. </p>

<p>As such, I might be a little more willing than you to be unpleasant with obnoxious aunt. I'll be sweet at first, but after 10 minutes of me being sweet, you're going to get an earful. It's a balancing act. You need to know your clients well enough to know how you should deal with it. You have to feel it out in every situation. I always try to negotiate first, but I am not afraid to pull-rank. The bride and groom paid a lot so that someone would get them good photos, and I'm determined to do that.</p>

<p>You'll find that the most expensive photographers put up with almost no garbage. Now they're more well-known, and can afford to be primadonnas more than I can, but I'm not going to let a know-nothing distant relative run the show. I would handle closer/more important relatives more carefully.</p>

<p>I'm not presumptuous enough to tell clients "what they should be wanting" but I think that it's generally nice if you can include a small album or set of prints in your package along with the DVD. All my packages include the disc, but even my lowest priced packages also include a professional quality hardbound album. On the smaller packages it's not a huge album (about 10 photo pages is all) but it sits on their coffee table, shows beautiful photos, and helps me to get referrals. I think that if you're tentative about selling just the DVD, consider throwing in a small high-quality album into the package. My clients universally appreciate having the album to show off.</p>

<p>You should consider picking up another flash unit (practicing with it) and if possible another body. A used Sony body (compatible with your lenses) should be pretty affordable.</p>

<p>If you can't afford that, try to make a friend who can loan you an older DSLR body that you can practice with and use. If you're still unsure of your abilities, consider trying to bring a more experienced photographer along with you. If they don't have to worry about editing the photos or anything, they might be willing to step in and help you out (provided they're not already booked) for a reasonable price. It means you'll get less money, but it's a form of insurance.</p>

<p>If it were on a weekday, for example, and I could just hand you the cards at the end of the night, I might go along for the ride for a pretty reasonable price (especially if you were a friend.)</p>

<p>I thank them for their time and wish them the best. I don't do self-laudatory blog-posts about how great I am or how hard I work. I don't lecture them on the importance of the day. Generally they simply don't value their wedding pictures enough to pay my prices for me. Now, it's true that a day might come (provided they're still married) when they'd prefer that they got better wedding photos, but today they don't care, and I'm not going to push.</p>

<p>Here's why I don't push. They don't value my (or other photographer's) service. Even if I persuaded them to go with me, they are going to buy my cheapest package. They are going to demand twice as much for their cheap package as someone who actually values my work/time/skills. In that case they're more trouble than they're worth. I'm already quite affordable relative to my skill level, though, so maybe someone who is more pricey relative to what they are able to deliver would have a different view. I'm not a sales(wo)man. My product's a good one and it sells itself.</p>

<p>I'm not big on FAQ's either. I don't know if they persuade clients, but they don't impress me at all. Maybe it's because I tend to see those kinds of FAQs on sub-par photographers' websites. Others will have different views on this topic.</p>

<p>In that situation I would pull-rank no question. Tell them the bride and groom paid for my artistic vision, and that it's not appropriate for her to call the shots.</p>

<p>Caveat: if obnoxious lady is MOB or maybe MOG I might not do that. If obnoxious lady is an aunt, I'll firmly tell her that she is making is so that the bride and groom are not getting good shots and that she is wasting their time and money on their wedding day. If it escalates, I'll find the MOB or someone else with whom I have a good relationship and tell them to take care of the problem.</p>

<p>I usually have shot the bride and groom once before the wedding event itself, and so generally the parents are very very supportive of me and know how great I am. In a situation like that I can ask the parents to go to bat for me. Odds are they think the aunt is obnoxious, too.</p>

<p>I only bother with telling them to stop shooting if 1)they are getting in the way--between me and the subject or obstructing my movement or 2)they are making it so that guests are looking at the wrong camera. If people are getting in the way or making them look at the wrong camera, I'll just yell out that the subjects need to focus only on me. I generally don't ask guests to stop shooting unless they're actually in my way.</p>

<p>If they are merely annoying you but not materially disrupting your ability to shoot, then learn to ignore them. The event is about the bride and groom, their families, and the guests. Get great photos, but only pull rank if you actually need to do so. I try to be pretty thick-skinned and avoid making a scene unless it's actually necessary. Part of why I make a good hourly wage as a photographer is because I'm both 1)skilled in photography and 2)able to skillfully put up with guests garbage.</p>

<p>That said, if anyone tries to art direct, asks the subject to look at their camera, or otherwise materially interferes with my shooting...they can expect to get an earful.</p>

<p>One more small note. If you have a flash website, it's not going to be accessible to people with iPhones, iPads, or other non-flash devices. As such, I think my blog serves as a main website for people who want to learn about me while they're on the bus or whatever. I know that sounds stupid, but if some bride can look at my photos on her iPad while she rides the train home from work, that's one more potential client.</p>

<p>I think a lot of people don't even bother to look through all the images on your website. If you have a blog and a website, they'll just look at the photos on there for about 30 seconds, and then go to your blog where they'll sometimes spend several minutes. Looking at my traffic patterns this seems to be the case. They don't want to know "what have you done," they want to know "what have you done lately?"</p>

<p>In a world where there are a zillion incompetent photographers, a blog tells your clients that you're actually doing work on a regular basis. It tells your clients that you have good shots from every shoot. My blog is pretty sparse on details and heavy on photos, and I always get permission from my clients before I post anything. If your zenfolio or smugmug or whatever (I don't use those kinds of services) serves the purpose of telling potential clients that you have more than a handful of weddings in your portfolio, then maybe you don't need a blog. </p>

<p>My blog helps to show my clients that I get lots of great memorable photos on every-single-shoot. Blogs also help my search engine optimization. Because I use a Flash site, my blog comes up before my website in Google search results. My blog also lets me develop a following of clients, other photographers, and other wedding vendors who can keep up on my work and see what the latest thing I've done is. These may or may not be reasons for you to blog, but I'm confident that my blog alone brings in about 1/3 of my work. YMMV.</p>