Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-25-2008, 05:09 AM   #61
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melb. Aust
Posts: 840
from what I hear, this is what is happening more, Pro's charging more upfront for time and less reliance on album sales, which may not happen. When I got married I don't think there was any mention of a charge for having the tog' turn up to take the pics he was going to sell to us as an album. Makes sense when you know half the 'clients' are just going to copy the proofs anyway. The Pro just needs to convince the bride-to-be that his pics are better than the cheapskate down the road!

I've had the reverse (to the OP) happen. Aquaintence of my wife told her she didn't need any extra copies of some baby pics we did for her cause she had copies made at ?Mart or someplace. I'd done them for the price of the paper (traditional B&W) in the 1st place. She kept dropping hints she wanted more shots of subsequent kids... they weren't going to happen!!! Wife doesn't she her anymore anyway... thankfully!

02-25-2008, 08:34 AM   #62
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 49
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
The wedding photography industry evolved over many years, with many photographers trying different methods of doing business, before settling on the general practices used today.
But isn't it evolving now more than ever? When everyone have a digital camera even on their cell phone and (D)SLR's sell more than ever? I don't envy you, I don't know how anyone can make a living as a photographer these days. I guess you need to be damn good and have happy customers who spread the word. I didn't mean to criticize your business methods, these days I just wouldn't trust people not to make their own copies. Good luck with your business!
02-25-2008, 09:46 AM   #63
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Tokina Quote
But ...(snip)...

I think you've misunderstood. I'm not a wedding photographer, nor would I ever shoot weddings at this point (other than for friends and family who coerce me into it). Instead, I primarily do industrial, product, fashion, and general advertising - and anything else on the side which pays well enough.

stewart
02-25-2008, 11:04 AM   #64
Forum Member
Jimsi777's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 75
Walmart? I cant afford them, and besides, they don't take coupons...
I buy online for Camera equipment and use my camera mainly for web hosting, my printer is ok for basic photos

02-25-2008, 11:38 AM   #65
Veteran Member
volosong's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 696
QuoteOriginally posted by cardinal43 Quote
I have most of mine printed at Costco. Just upload them at night, and pick up the next day. There has never been a problem. Maybe they don't consider mine to be "professional".
I do my printing at Costco too. However, I submit my images at the store and pick them up within the hour. Never had a problem. Guess my photos are not "professional" either. Then again, the girls at the photo center know me pretty well. Maybe I should go to Wal-Mart to see if I can get rejected. That would boost my ego with regards to my photographic abilities.
02-27-2008, 10:04 AM   #66
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 29
if anyone needs an additional reason to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart, see the documentary "Wal-Mart, the High Cost of Low Prices." It's a real eye-opener about the company's outrageous conduct on so many fronts, with interviews of many of the victims of Wal-Mart's policies, including their own employees

Among the most outrageous is the way they manipulate their employees' work hours to avoid having to provide benefits and then turn around and encourage them to apply (with printed instructions) for pubic assistance. In other words, we taxpayers are subsidizing the profits and income for the Walton family--one of the richest families in the world.
02-28-2008, 02:03 PM   #67
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA
Posts: 643
QuoteOriginally posted by Tokina Quote
I don't care what people copy/print privately, it's none of my business. As for softwares, many corporations are switching to open source products where they don't need any license
but you're missing out on the point. the point is, if you pirate software, you're taking money from the developer, right? if you want to let people print your photos freely, slap a Creative Commons license on them, which dictates what they can and can't do, which is the photographic equivalent of open source. certain versions of *nix are not for commercial use. you can have an image that can be reproduced all you want for non-commercial use, but you can't sell it, or call it your own. there's other freeware that's free to disburse ad nauseum, so long as you credit the creator -- same goes for the CC licensing. BUT, if your SOLE income depends on someone paying for a license of a product you developed.. wouldn't you be miffed if it just started getting passed around for free?

photographers need to make money on prints, because that's what the market dictates. if you're charging a MUCH higher rate than other equal quality photogs, with the stipulation being that you provide X many prints, and they're free to copy them, you're not going to get the same business as someone who's charging way less than you, but won't allow you to reproduce them yourself. why? because people will take advantage of the lower cost photog, since most people can't afford 20% markup on a 1500 dollar fee, just to allow you to print your own pictures.

02-28-2008, 10:49 PM   #68
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 329
I think Mr. Tokina's comments are much more contributing than all his detractors.

He is espousing a business model that sells a service.

All the detractors are espousing a business model that sells a product.

Both are viable and can be successful. As a small business owner, I believe the one that is innovative and different than all the others in a saturated market is of much more interest, and marketed intelligently has great chance of success.

Personally, if I interviewed several wedding photographers, some who spelled out a fee and continuing print costs in perpetuity, one who spelled out a fee and handing over image files for me to do whatever I wanted with, I would definitely sign the latter, and, to get back to original topic, I would therefore never enter into issue of copyright upon printing additional images of my wedding.
02-29-2008, 09:51 AM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 337
Around here (chicago) most wedding photographers now provide you with the full resolution digital files and a release for personal re-prints. Or at least that was what I saw when shopping for a wedding photographer recently. The deal is that you dont get the digital files for 6mo -1 year after the wedding so they have time to sell prints. I image that very few prints are sold past 1 year so giving the ability to print later means very little. I not sure if they're charing more for that now. FWIW I wouldn't do business with a photographer who wouldn't release me the files to make my own prints eventually. Its not like a film negative where he would lose the original for his record or other use.

I believe too that they really should be making their money on their time rather than a lowball figure up front and hoping to make it up on the back end. How many other services do you pay for that you dont have the right to do as you like with the end product once paid for?

Last edited by Geekybiker; 02-29-2008 at 12:51 PM.
03-02-2008, 04:47 AM   #70
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 49
QuoteOriginally posted by OniFactor Quote
but you're missing out on the point. the point is, if you pirate software, you're taking money from the developer, right? if you want to let people print your photos freely, slap a Creative Commons license on them, which dictates what they can and can't do, which is the photographic equivalent of open source. certain versions of *nix are not for commercial use. you can have an image that can be reproduced all you want for non-commercial use, but you can't sell it, or call it your own. there's other freeware that's free to disburse ad nauseum, so long as you credit the creator -- same goes for the CC licensing. BUT, if your SOLE income depends on someone paying for a license of a product you developed.. wouldn't you be miffed if it just started getting passed around for free?
I understand what you mean and it's very problematic. The biggest problem is that corporations like Microsoft, with their lawyers and thousands of software patents, are trying to shut down their competitors and open source projects. There is absolutely no evidence that software patents have promoted progress in any way.

Someone's private wedding photos are whole another thing

What if the customer is not happy with the quality of prints? I would like to have an option to buy printing service elsewhere. I would also like to watch them in high quality on my computer screen. Perhaps I'm not the average guy.

QuoteOriginally posted by OniFactor Quote
photographers need to make money on prints, because that's what the market dictates. if you're charging a MUCH higher rate than other equal quality photogs, with the stipulation being that you provide X many prints, and they're free to copy them, you're not going to get the same business as someone who's charging way less than you, but won't allow you to reproduce them yourself. why? because people will take advantage of the lower cost photog, since most people can't afford 20% markup on a 1500 dollar fee, just to allow you to print your own pictures.
One advantage for the customer in that model is that if he doesn't like the photos he has lost less money. But I would still choose the other, as a customer and as a photographer.
03-02-2008, 06:57 PM   #71
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Donald Quote
I think Mr. Tokina's comments are much more contributing than all his detractors.

He is espousing a business model that sells a service.

All the detractors are espousing a business model that sells a product. (snip)

The end product of photography (the service) is the images. You and Tokina are espousing a business model in which the images themselves are fundamentally worthless (only labor and expenses for the photographer with the customer free to do whatever with the images). Of course, since a professional photographer was hired to produce the images wanted so very badly, those images are clearly not worthless (do you consider your images worthless). So, what is truly being sought in Tokina's, and now your, business model is a method of gaining valuable images without actually compensating the photographer for that value.

Again, as explained in an earlier message, it is very expensive to run a business and those costs must be covered somewhere. Profit has to be made as well. Most wedding photographers do so now by spreading that over the labor and expense costs for any individual wedding and image sales from present and all prior weddings. Remove the image sales and the first two (labor and expenses) will have to increase dramatically. In other words, the customer is not going to save all that much over the existing business model. However, the photographer does stand to lose considerably, first from lost customers after quoting labor and expense fees high enough to cover all business expenses in those two fees alone and later from his valuable images being spread around without restriction and without compensation.

stewart
03-03-2008, 09:52 AM   #72
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
The end product of photography (the service) is the images. You and Tokina are espousing a business model in which the images themselves are fundamentally worthless (only labor and expenses for the photographer with the customer free to do whatever with the images). Of course, since a professional photographer was hired to produce the images wanted so very badly, those images are clearly not worthless (do you consider your images worthless). So, what is truly being sought in Tokina's, and now your, business model is a method of gaining valuable images without actually compensating the photographer for that value.

Again, as explained in an earlier message, it is very expensive to run a business and those costs must be covered somewhere. Profit has to be made as well. Most wedding photographers do so now by spreading that over the labor and expense costs for any individual wedding and image sales from present and all prior weddings. Remove the image sales and the first two (labor and expenses) will have to increase dramatically. In other words, the customer is not going to save all that much over the existing business model. However, the photographer does stand to lose considerably, first from lost customers after quoting labor and expense fees high enough to cover all business expenses in those two fees alone and later from his valuable images being spread around without restriction and without compensation.

stewart
And despite that, it seems its where the market is moving. I suppose it depends on your outlook though. I am hiring a wedding photographer to produce images for me. Now that is different than prints. Just like any other industry people have to adapt though, and the new model is that people get their digital files. I would argue that rather than losing clients based solely on cost, the wedding photographer who refuses to release digital files will lose clients based on that fact.

This may not be everywhere yet, but I would be shocked if it didnt spread considering the ubiquity of digital cameras these days.
03-04-2008, 04:42 AM   #73
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Geekybiker Quote
And despite that, it seems its where the market is moving. (snip)

There will always be short-sighted, less-skilled, individuals willing to do virtually anything (work for low wages, sell at bargan-basement prices, give away images, use fraudulent business practices or outright deceit, etc) in an effort to undercut the more-skilled competition. The proliferation of amateurs with digital cameras, often willing to work for free and give away the images, only adds to that. However, I suspect the trend you describe will only become the norm after the best photographers leave the wedding industry in favor of more lucrative business opportunities.

stewart
03-04-2008, 08:13 AM   #74
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA
Posts: 643
QuoteOriginally posted by Geekybiker Quote
And despite that, it seems its where the market is moving. I suppose it depends on your outlook though. I am hiring a wedding photographer to produce images for me. Now that is different than prints. Just like any other industry people have to adapt though, and the new model is that people get their digital files. I would argue that rather than losing clients based solely on cost, the wedding photographer who refuses to release digital files will lose clients based on that fact.

This may not be everywhere yet, but I would be shocked if it didnt spread considering the ubiquity of digital cameras these days.
and what about professional film users? they'll lose business if they only use a darkroom and wet techniques, because people want digital. how is that fair?
03-04-2008, 01:19 PM   #75
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
There will always be short-sighted, less-skilled, individuals willing to do virtually anything (work for low wages, sell at bargan-basement prices, give away images, use fraudulent business practices or outright deceit, etc) in an effort to undercut the more-skilled competition. The proliferation of amateurs with digital cameras, often willing to work for free and give away the images, only adds to that. However, I suspect the trend you describe will only become the norm after the best photographers leave the wedding industry in favor of more lucrative business opportunities.

stewart
Full of pomp and vitriol aren't we?

I'm not talking about people who just ran out and bought a rebel and now think they're professionals. I'm talking about studios that have been in the business for decades. They're doing this. As I said, this may not be the case in your marker yet, but don't be surprised if you stick to the traditional model and slowly lose business to people that do adapt fully to the digital world.

In the end you either adapt or you die. Oddly your attitude much reminds me of the RIAA who desperately wants to deny that a new business model exists, and are being dragged kicking and screaming into a new way or distribution.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
business, card, cards, photographs, photography, photos, pictures, print, wal-mart
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Oh (Wal)nuts summatusmentis Photo Critique 7 12-20-2009 11:10 AM
SD Cards: Attention Wal-Mart shoppers! heatherslightbox Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 3 07-19-2009 11:33 AM
K20 With Kit Lens For $670 At Wal-Mart shutterpuppy Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 06-19-2009 09:13 PM
Wal-mart Photo, How they do that? foots Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 07-09-2008 09:18 AM
Flowers in a city of European Architecture. Plus one wal-mart shot. ;] Kingsofronin Post Your Photos! 0 07-23-2007 10:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top