Firstly, thanks Doug for the link and for taking the time to make such a
detailed response to my questions.
There are some cute ideas on that web page, however, I differ slightly with
my view of how to shoot kids than these guys do, as I am planning to only
shoot children with available light and predominantly in natural rather than
studio type settings (at least that's the plan for now, we'll see how long
it lasts for!). I am really aiming for candid expressions and poses here.
You said: "1.) If your friend with the two daughters showed the shots off at
school and
the other mums want to hire you to do the same for =their= kids, that means
they want you to DO THE SAME FOR THEIR KIDS. They want you to do the same
poses, the same expressions, the =same=. Mums often pay a lot of lip service
to having "different" portraits done of their kids, but most of them
actually fear anything that will make the kids appear different."
I have actually thought about this myself and adopted that very same view.
I am thinking that all of these women will want me to shoot all of their
kids so that the end results are very similar to what the were originally
shown. I can only hope that this won't happen and that I can truly cater
each shoot specifically to the personality of each child.
Doug also said: "2.) When you hung those wings on the kids, you already
jumped over the
cheesy line, so it's too late for that particular dilemma."
I disagree with this one Doug. The family of the little "fairy" girl is
almost bordering on being "hippy". ie they are extremely New Age (hence her
Dad's veggie patch that she was sitting in etc). They are "for" all things
natural and to do with nature. It is for this reason that we chose to dress
her as a "flower fairy" - to try and keep within their ideas and beliefs.
She is also a very inquisitive, curious and very "cheeky" little girl and we
thought that this would be a great way to show off those attributes. It
wasn't simply a case of "hanging a pair of wings on her" to make her look
cute. For example, if I were to photograph a little girl of the same age
whose parents were much more traditional and straight-laced in their
beliefs, I would perhaps have her sitting in her room playing quietly with
some toys or reading a book etc. I fully intend to cater each shoot
specifically to the child and his/her family's personalities and beliefs, so
to avoid the "cheese" factor. Oh, and I REFUSE to sit any kids in picnic
baskets or surround them with teddy bears - uuugh! how unnatural is that?!?
"3.) There's Business, and there's Art. Rarely do they wind up in the same
county, much less on the same shoot. Look at it this way: When you did your
friend's little girls, it was probably as a sort of practice, like, "Hey, I
need to do some fairy photos, mind if I borrow the girls?" In that
situation, the girls are models, there to prop up your Photographs. This is
your Art. Now, when the other mums want you to shoot their kids, those kids
go from being models, or props, to being Subjects. Notice the shift. Now the
photo has to be built to support the subject. This is Business."
I do of course understand this, and this my exact view. I do not however,
wish to compromise my creative input and would never go so far as to
shooting something that I didn't like just to please a "client" or in this
case, the kids' parents. Thus, my approach to use a context for each kid
that will bring out their true personality and nature and beliefs ie.
"support the subject" (to please the parents) while at the same time
injecting my own interpretation of how to do this ie. "prop up my
photographs" (eg. in this case, putting on the fairy wings.). I must say
though, that I didn't at any time say to this lady "I need to do some fairy
pics do you mind if I borrow your girls". I instead thought "who do I know
that has a little girl who has the personality to be a "flower fairy", and
who's parents would view this in a personal context, and who would like some
nice shots of their girls?" BTW, the parents also paid for all film,
processing and my petrol money (they live over 2 hours away), in exchange
for me taking those shots. I viewed in this instance, my payment as being
able to keep the negs, which I see as my major learning tool in all of this.
"4.) Charge real money. Decide what your prices are and stick with them. If
you give your work away, you'll get a rep as a "cheap" photog, and nobody
will want to pay you a fair price later."
I have decided at this stage to charge au$200 per session (extra for petrol
if there is travel involved). This includes 3 rolls of film (their choice
of colour, b&w or a combination), "double" prints of all shots taken in 6 x
8s, and also all styling/costuming. I believe this to be fair and just at
this stage in the game. It allows the parents to receive up to 80 different
shots, with two copies of each at a usable size, with a variety of moods,
and a good mix of b&w and colour. I do not put a "limit" on my shooting
time, I will stay as long as the kids need. If they need to break and have
a snack or just run around for a bit, I don't mind, and I will usually have
my kids along too to help keep them entertained. I will shoot only
available light, and at any location that they wish within reason. I supply
all of my own "props" and costumes (unless a parent has something
particularly special or personally sentimental that they wish to have shot)
and do all of my own hair/makeup if any is needed (which it often is with
kids who tend to have lots of scratches and grazed knees!).
In doing it this way, my costs are about au$20 for film, au$90 for
processing. I will make about au$100 per shoot which I can then put
straight back into equipment/building up a stock of costumes/backdrops
(which I make myself) and props. Do you think this is fair to charge this
much? Do you think that I am offering value for money? I agree with what
you are saying that I don't want to be viewed as a "cheap" photographer.
But at the same time, I don't want to give people the expectation that I am
better than I actually am by charging too much. (I hope this makes sense).
"5.)It's harder than Anne Geddes makes it look. "
Oh, I know it! I love Anne Geddes work, but I could never aspire to such a
level. I don't have the equipment, the time or the money for such
greatness, it's nice to dream though....
Treena Harp also wrote:
"Agreed. I have a great deal of respect for Anne Geddes. Besides the more
playful greeting card and calendar stuff, she's done some wonderful black
and white. I think sometimes it takes a special kind of masochist to work
with children."
Hi Treena, I have two of them already, so I KNOW it takes a special kind of
masochist to work with children! 8-)
BTW, it is interesting that it appears that the direction I am heading is
for children's portraits. My first love is fashion, however, lack of
resources and also lack of a qualified teacher is very impeding where
fashion is concerned, so I may have to just resign myself to viewing all of
the pretty models in the pretty dresses in the expensive magazines, and take
some cute shots of some kids (for now anyways).
fairy.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
