Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
"Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Oh, give'em a couple of centuries. They'll thaw up. > >Buddhism looks better...:-) Speaking of which: Has anyone ever photographed a Buddhist wedding? And if so, what form of Buddhism? (Tibetan, Zen, etc.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Unless I missed it in this thread somewhere, I've seen no one comment on the staging of the ceremony afterwards to compensate for either the lack of flash during or no shooting at all during the ceremony. I've had pretty good success and complete cooperation from the clergy in this matter thus far, doing the actual ceremony shots in this manner. I realize it fails to capture the moment of the ceremony, but is much better then getting nothing at all, or grossly blurred, off colored pictures. I see the biggest problem as being unprepared for what your going to encounter on that day. I like to go to the church about the same time of day as the proposed wedding and burning a roll of film while experimenting with filters and the like and maybe even an extra roll of tungsten balanced film as well. I don't need to get prints at this point, since scanning is enough to tell me how they are going to come out. I've even had clients purchase some of these preshots if they like the churches architecture. There is of course no guarantee that the ambient lighting will be the same on any given day, but I feel I definitely have an advantage this way. It also helps me to set up all the must get shots in my head ahead of time. The clergies have then had an opportunity to tell me their wish list and as a whole been much better to work with when I took this extra step. When your getting paid to do a shoot it is your responsibility to do everything within your power to make this job a complete success. Dave > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, William Robb wrote: > > From: "Amita Guha" > > > The Presbyterian church where we got married (200 year old congregation) > > > didn't allow photography during the service, but we knew about that well > > > in advance. I was actually kind of happy not to have the distraction. > > > During a wedding we attended shortly after, there were cameras going off > > > all during the ceremony and it seemed to wreck the mood. > > > > My experience was that a no photos during the ceremony policy only shut down > > the working photographers. There will always be a number of pew warmers who > > don't observe the ban, I suspect on the theory that there isn't a hell of a > > lot that can be done about them. > > OTOH, a pro who doesn't listen can be barred from shooting there in the > > future.
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a > ...and the thing you're doing wrong is charging too little. Low end pricing > gets you low end clients. Weekend warriors shooting $500 weddings are going > to attract riff-raff clients who basically want something for nothing. This > is why, as a "shooting on the side" guy, I only freelance for studios atart > at midrange pricing. > Don't even have to deal with PITA MOBs, because it's the B&G that arrange > things and sign the contract. Even if the folks are contributing, you're > working for the person that signs the contract. One of the things that was mentioned by the originator of this thread was that she is trying to eke out a living in a low population area. I recall she mentioned something like 40,000 people in a 200km wide market base. Even if she were the only game in town, there just isn't a lot of market there. I think she will have a very hard time following all the advice we have given her regarding pricing. She has already set herself up as the person to go to on the cheap, so raising her prices to industry standards (whatever they are) is going to be a long, slow process of a few percentage points at a time, and having to put up with a lot of resistance from people who know what she charged for work in the past. It's doable, but not overnight, and in the meantime, she will probably have to put up with a few tightwads. Being expensive in a small market isn't easy, but is worthwhile. One of the most expensive photographers around here lives in the town of Moose Jaw, which has a population of around 45,000. He has priced himself really well, and had achieved a nice balance of income vs. workload. I did a seminar with him one time. One of the things he mentioned was that a 10% price reduction means that you need to do 40% more work to turn the same income. I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but it is food for thought. William Robb
RE: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a
...and the thing you're doing wrong is charging too little. Low end pricing gets you low end clients. Weekend warriors shooting $500 weddings are going to attract riff-raff clients who basically want something for nothing. This is why, as a "shooting on the side" guy, I only freelance for studios atart at midrange pricing. Don't even have to deal with PITA MOBs, because it's the B&G that arrange things and sign the contract. Even if the folks are contributing, you're working for the person that signs the contract. At the end of most weddings we get thanks, hugs and a check. BR From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Weddings are fun. Unless you're hired by rednecks, twits, or morons, people are going to be on their best behavior, treat you well, and give you cake. - If you get hired by rednecks, twits or morons it's your own damn fault.
RE: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Bitch and moan, bitch and moan, wah, wah, wah. Just to counteract the horror stories... - I like most of my clients. Every once in a while I get hired by a twit, but generally they're very nice people who treat me well. In fact, most of them treat me like I'm doing them a favor. - I shoot what I want, and I enjoy what I shoot. The only shots I'm not so interested in are family groups, but I can stand them for 20 minutes out of 8 hours. - Weddings are fun. Unless you're hired by rednecks, twits, or morons, people are going to be on their best behavior, treat you well, and give you cake. - If you get hired by rednecks, twits or morons it's your own damn fault. - If you act like a professional, people will treat you like one. tv
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
- Original Message - From: "Amita Guha" Subject: RE: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > The Presbyterian church where we got married (200 year old congregation) > didn't allow photography during the service, but we knew about that well > in advance. I was actually kind of happy not to have the distraction. > During a wedding we attended shortly after, there were cameras going off > all during the ceremony and it seemed to wreck the mood. My experience was that a no photos during the ceremony policy only shut down the working photographers. There will always be a number of pew warmers who don't observe the ban, I suspect on the theory that there isn't a hell of a lot that can be done about them. OTOH, a pro who doesn't listen can be barred from shooting there in the future. William Robb
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
promised. Ceremony ends and priest "thanks" me for my assistance (?!?) and then congratulates me on a "job well done" I think some priests have had very bad experiences in the past and they prefer to be safe than sorry. We photographed a wedding where apart from us there were 7 or 8 other people clicking and filming. (3 other photographers, rest video). They were disgusting! Winding the film back standing 1.5 metres behind the priest, learning how to use a flash in the middle of the isle, blocking the B&G. We only had 3 photos that featured B&G, rest had B&G + someone else. No matter how hard you tried, no matter how tightly you cropped, there was another body, or a part of it there. Once you have done a good job, the priest realises that you did OK and they will thank you. Of course. (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
There are far too many photographers chasing too few customers. (Thanks to automation - it was all downhill after the ME was widely available.) In the old days, the pro got involved with the booking of the formal portraits at the time photos were needed for the newspaper announcement (the papers had standards and wouldn't accept snapshots, usually wanting glossy B&W 8x10's). So things naturally progressed to the wedding photography being done by the studio (who had probably also taken the baptismal photos of the bride). Now, automatic point and shoots are good enough for folks who are glad to dump the expense of the studio from their lives. Mall photographer shots for special occasions are more that adequate for folks - relatives will supply the rest of the snaps for the albums. Many weddings around here only have a pro videographer in attendance, because VHS tapes are the desired item to send out of town relatives these days - or they email digital snaps. And 8 mm camcorders have seriously eroded that business. And they *do* haggle with the florist, dressmakers, caterers, etc. The last pro photographer I know from the 70's is running a framing shop, because that's when you make the money - and you don't have to lug 50 lbs of Mamiya gear around to do it. -- Robert - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > Hello frank, > > I think some of them do try to bargain down everything. I have been > shocked at how much they can pay for some things. > > One real issue/problem is that the general percieved value of a > photograph has steadily declined as the ability to make/create one has > increased. Many years ago, the automation available for someone who > hasn't gained the knowledge of photography was pretty poor. But with > good P&S cameras and mini labs, the ability for anyone to create a > passable snapshot has made them feel that the value of the item > (photo) isn't very high. After all, all I did was press a button. I > really didn't have to know anything or learn anything. > > Most people who are looking at pictures are just looking at memories > or seeing recognizable subjects. When they see something done by a > "pro", they may exclaim "Wow, that is great!" But I don't think their > expectation is that high. A few are, and they are paying good money > to get a quality job. But many don't have high expectations or > budgets. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > > Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 3:22:23 PM, you wrote: > > ft> As an aside to this thread, I wonder why it is that in so many weddings, the > ft> photographer seems to be an afterthought? Something to be done on the > ft> cheap? > > ft> Mygod, everything else in today's weddings, from the gawd-awful u-ly > ft> bridesmaid's dresses to the flowers to the limos to the reception hall to > ft> the hairdressing/make-up to the honeymoon costs HUGE money. I mean folks > ft> are spending $10 or $20K on a wedding these days? And yet, after it's all > ft> over, all you have is memories and some stale cake in a funny box and > ft> matchbook with the bride and groom's name on it. If not for the photos, > ft> what's to keep the memories alive? > > ft> Why would one skimp on that? > > ft> I wonder how many engaged couples (or their families) try to bargain down > ft> the limosine company? Or the reception hall? (HA! try that one!) > > ft> Just a casual observation... > > ft> cheers, > ft> frank > > ft> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > ft> fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > > >>From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Subject: RE: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > >>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:50:30 - > >> > ft> > >>Taking it as read that going 'pro' means you are capable of consistent, > >>excellent photographs, you have to then translate what people ask for into > >>what they *actually* want. They don't want to spend much money when any > >>other professional working at weekends or public holidays, would charge the > >>pants off them. > >> > ft> > > ft> _ > ft> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > ft> http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin. msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca > > >
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Bill said: "> On the heels of the AF revolution came the "PJ" style of wedding > photography, which to me requires as much skill as squishing a wounded bug." Jeez Bill, hope tv doesn't read that... I totally disagree with you on that point. I am hopeless at PJ photography and I don't really like it much either. I like to have "control" of a situation, and I think it takes GREAT skill to be able to produce a good photograph when every "controllable" factor such as light, posing, expressions, colour etc are taken out of your hands... > Suddenly, to be a professional photographer, you didn't need to know what > you were doing. Yep, well, that would include me! > All you needed was a thousand dollars for a camera, lens and flash, and the > store would happily take Visa or Mastercard. Unless you are like me and your visa is usually maxed out due to buying toys, sewing machines to make clothes for the kids and the like. I save for my equipment and pay for it all up front. > A lot of people became instant professionals, and cashed in big in the > wedding market. Yep, making it harder for the rest of us to do so. > I shot a wedding for a friend a few years ago. > The church was some United church. > Basically, a social club with delusions of religionhood. > Friggin twits wouldn't let me shoot at all during the service, and actually > put a staffer on me to make sure I didn't break their rules. > > Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand > years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a > spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life > miserable? I TOTALLY agree. Have seen this MANY a time. One priest told me that I could take photographs during the ceremony, but wasn't allowed to make any of those "silly clicking noises", not allowed to "use those bright flash things that go off in my eyes all the time" AND that I had to stay in one spot and if I moved at all during the ceremony he would "stop the proceedings and have me removed from the church". So, I batted my eyelids at him, smiled sweetly and said "I completely understand and respect your church's policies, would you mind explaining these things to the bride and groom so that when they receive their photographs back, they'll understand why the most important part of their day wasn't captured how they had dreamed it", more batting of eyelids, and sweet little smiles, followed by compliments on the church's decore... He said "umm, well, i am able to make some allowances in exceptional circumstances and I *do* really like this couple" (but hold on I thought these things were the policy of the CHURCH, not some aging old priest weilding to the "pressure" of having to justify his nasty old ways to a young, in love couple"...), Ok, so Wedding day arrives - Tanya uses flash all the way through ceremony, "clicked" as much as I felt like it (AND used the AF confirmation beep too!), AND flitted around all over the place like a little butterfly and waiting for the proceedings to stop and for me to be removed from the church as he'd promised. Ceremony ends and priest "thanks" me for my assistance (?!?) and then congratulates me on a "job well done" (erm, yep, but you haven't seen the pics yet, buddy!) Moral of the story? Most old fuddy-duddies of priests wouldn't dare risk damaging their pride or egos, by having to "bow down" to simple folk like a naive young couple, are too dim-witted to think of a way to sway the argument in their favour, and in fact, probably think that they are doing said couple a favour by "allowing" them such wonderful "coverage" of their wedding day (yeah, the one that said Church has probably accepted a sizeable donation for "hosting"...) OTOH, I have had the more progressive churches and priests (male and female), say to me upfront "I understand that you are a professional and that you need to do whatever it is to ensure that the couple get the memories that they always dreamed of. You may do whatever you like (erm, but no standing on the alter preferably) within my Church providing that you are respectful to us and the proceedings etc" I don't get it either Bill! tan.
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life miserable? Go figure. I don't get it. William Robb William, it depends on the priest/celebrant. Some will almost allow you to can-can on the altar (not that you would want to), others will put you at the back of the church where the chalked "X" is on the floor and this is the spot for your tripod. We had one wedding like that. The priest justified his actions by saying it was a spiritual experience, and then he cracked inappropriate jokes during the service himself. We have done weddings for 7 or 8 years now. I think I only recall 2 occasions where severe restrictions were placed on us. And we have worked with more than 'regular' priests (archbishops on a regular basis for example) (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > > One real issue/problem is that the general percieved value of a > photograph has steadily declined as the ability to make/create one has > increased. Many years ago, the automation available for someone who > hasn't gained the knowledge of photography was pretty poor. But with > good P&S cameras and mini labs, the ability for anyone to create a > passable snapshot has made them feel that the value of the item > (photo) isn't very high. After all, all I did was press a button. I > really didn't have to know anything or learn anything. This is precisely why photography in general, and wedding photography in particular, has become somewhat undervalued to many people (like the ones who are shopping for a photographer). I really noticed a rapid change in customer attitude when the auto everything SLR cameras came onto the market. Auto focus SLR's changed everything, because you didn't need to know anything about photography to be a photographer. On the heels of the AF revolution came the "PJ" style of wedding photography, which to me requires as much skill as squishing a wounded bug. Suddenly, to be a professional photographer, you didn't need to know what you were doing. All you needed was a thousand dollars for a camera, lens and flash, and the store would happily take Visa or Mastercard. A lot of people became instant professionals, and cashed in big in the wedding market. I got out of the wedding game quite soon after that, I didn't need the grief of being undercut by some weekend warrier who was doing weddings to fill in a few hours on a Saturday afternoon to pay for his beer while he watched Sunday afternoon football. Occassionally, someone talks me into shooting another one. Less often now, as I have said no often enough that I don't get bothered much anymore. This suits me fine. I shot a wedding for a friend a few years ago. The church was some United church. Basically, a social club with delusions of religionhood. Friggin twits wouldn't let me shoot at all during the service, and actually put a staffer on me to make sure I didn't break their rules. Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life miserable? Go figure. I don't get it. William Robb
