BBC story about wedding photography

lurchlarson · 10-07-2009, 10:05 PM

One thing I was thinking...this example of the poor wedding photography is yet another example of the Photographer being more important than the gear.

But for immature kicks'n'giggles he was probably shooting with a Canikon.

opfor · 10-08-2009, 03:17 AM

One thing that no one has mentioned is that this story is from the UK. Over here they have a peculiar term for bogus workmen called a "cowboy".
The usual train of thought is that someone opens a "business", usually with a mobile phone for a contact. They then conduct their business just long enough to take enough deposits to make it worth while, then move to a new location with a new e-mail, mobile number, and business name. Due to local laws, a new business is not responsible for the obligations of a failed business and taking the cowboy to court to prove fraud and get your money back costs more than the money you lost.
Usually it is related to people doing small home improvement/appliance installation/construction projects. Take a deposit, make a small show of trying to do something, stall like crazy and then skip town before too many lawsuits get started and start the cycle all over again.
Could it be that the cowboys have branched out into the photo business?

Peter Zack · 10-08-2009, 04:21 AM

Well there is a certain amount of that going on of course. It's happened here as well. But that's a very small percentage I think. The real issue is that the market is flooded with shooters. Digital is free once you own a camera. So on the face of it, it seems cheap and easy to get into this if you are only thinking about the money you can make.

In response to a couple of points made earlier, I am a salesman. I've been doing that for almost as long as I've been shooting. It was the perfect job because of the flexibility. I worked as an independent sales rep and could completely control my hours. So it allowed the time to work on photography nearly full time. My sales 'skills' don't help me much in all honesty. When the overriding factor to many clients is cost, that is not selling. It's a race to zero and the guy willing to drop his drawers the furthest, gets the deal. But of course he/she doesn't win in the end. They gave away the work and the margins (if any) are gone.

I agree with Will that we need to educate most clients. But even that is a tough battle. I had a couple here last night who didn't book me. With these people I really don't want their business either with the mind set they have. I always have a selection of my gear to show them. A couple of studio lights that are portable, the 3 cameras (K20D's and a K10D) with grips, lenses and AF400T's attached. I always explain that I have this much gear in case something fails. A shutter could crap out or a lens stop working. Their day won't be ruined as a result etc.

She loved the work and the albums I showed her. He seemed to appreciate it. Near the end, I thought she was close to saying yes and we had nailed down the package, or so I thought. Then he chimes in to say, I'm a photographer as well and you do a nice job but would you consider a cheaper price and just cover the service and a few formal shots and leave the rest up to us and friends? Say an hourly rate for 3 hours?

Zero value in the prints, albums and products I'd shown them. My answer shocked him and disappointed her. I think, had he not been the "hero" at the end, we would have come to a fair deal. (In sales we called the friend who gets involved at the end of a deal, the hero. He's the guy who drives the deal down (or often kills it) with some comment and when they are back in the car, driving home, the hero says "see how much I saved you by coming along".)

So I simply said, if the value of the work is not in the quality of the images you get to last you a lifetime and you feel photography as basically all the same from everyone, then you should find the cheapest photographer you can and book him. I don't think we would be a good fit. I value the relationship I develop with clients and feel that the connection between the client and photographer has a lot to do with the quality and vision captured in those prints. I'm not your guy.

And so they left. I wouldn't want that deal anyway after that. Pass them a CD and get a couple hundred bucks. Nope.

So there's the issue right now. There's more and more photographers out there "educating" the clients that it's a price driven service. Like ads on TV for the cheapest set of winter tires (or is that tyres?). Not long ago price was almost not part of the conversation. It was about the work, vision, creative process and all that. If they liked what you did, they hired you and figured out how to pay for it later.

I sure hope it's not going the way of the music business. If so, then it's time to find something else to do and the client is the one who looses the most. They get their BBC wedding.

A possible solution:

I have considered one thing though but haven't figured out exactly how to do it. I'll shoot the wedding for a small deposit and put the shots up on a sharing service like Smugmug for the B&G to proof. Each shot has a signature. Then the fee for shots is say $25.00 each. The average client will probably want 100 shots or so. The deposit is a "credit" toward the shots they want. It's risky and I could easily shoot the thing for next to nothing, but if the idea works, it would drive the cheap shooters out of the market.

Consider that the cheap guy produces 3 shots the B&G likes (like the BBC shooter) and the booking deposit is $250.00. So they use up the credit on the few shots they like and don't get anything more because the work sucks. He's not going to shoot very many weddings after a few of those. But if I have 200 very good shots to show them and they want the majority of them, then I can make a decent living off it since I'm getting paid based on my skill. I can offer a few other things at certain price levels and basically give the same services, just paid a different way.

It would certainly drive the crappy shooters out of the market. Why would anyone shoot a wedding for $250 or so? Even to the discount photog (or my term has been "weekend warrior"), that is not worth the time or effort. It does however, force me and other serious shooters to "raise the bar" for each client. Providing a so-so package will get you very little in the bank.

Then add an A La Carte price menu for other products. Albums, enlargements and so on. The idea came from the school pictures we have every year. They send out this package of watermarked prints every year and we choose the photos we want and the price package. The whole thing is shot on speculation they will sell a certain amount of work at each school. So they shoot the thing for nothing and let the quality of the work do the job for them.

Thoughts?

opfor · 10-08-2009, 08:09 AM

I think your hero factor hits a lot of it right on the head. Never heard it explained that way but it fits very well.
The wife and I recently did a wedding for one of her friends. Basically we provided two albums for the base fee and didn't have any after sales as there were too many "heros" who brought cameras to the wedding. We had three different guests at the reception explain to us that since they had obviously taken more pictures than we had, that they obviously had done a better job. (funny how I didn't see one of them change a lens or a card during the day, but they all took well over a "thousand" pics each...

) That was just the three with DSLRs. Obviously we should have done the right thing and given the B&G their money back, I think that was the impression we were supposed to have gotten...

(as a side note, we were trying to give two of our sons some shutter time and experience so we basically had four cameras going on the day, and they actually had a couple of pics we put in one of the albums)
The B&G absolutely loved the formal and informal albums we gave them and we've had queries about shooting some more weddings in the new year. I just don't like doing them much any more unless we are doing them for friends. Too many "heros", trouble, and time spent for what people want to pay these days. As you say, you have to spend more time explaining why it works the way it does than spending time deciding what they want these days.

Classvino · 10-08-2009, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

couple of weddings ago, i overheard one of the brides maids state that "i cant believe someone gets paid to shoot photos"

I've heard similar things... I think that the underlying issue is that the level of respect that a good photographer could reasonably expect has been eroded by the availability of inexpensive, somewhat decent cameras. Everybody seems to have one... (Not counting phones or webcams, or my DSLR's, there are 4 digi-cameras (all > 6mp) in my house in regular use.)

Now a slight comfession...
My apologies if you feel they're warranted, but I might be a little close to what Peter refers to as a "weekend warrior". I don't look for business or advertise, and only do 2 or 3 weddings a year. When I get asked to do a wedding (and I NEVER volunteer) I do my darnedest to convince them (usually a business associate or 'friend of a friend' etc) to hire a "real" wedding photographer, and failing that, I make sure that all parties involved are aware that I'm not a professional-calibre photographer, and that I accept no responsibility, and make no promises other than to give it my best shot. After recounting a couple of wedding-photo-horror stories, I then make them sign an agreement to show they understand my stipulations. This weeds out at least half of the people that ask me. I agree with Peter that the weekend warriors aren't helping things any, but I justify myself by stating that if, after all my attempts at dissuasion, they still want my services, if I didn't do it, someone would 'take them for as much as they could, and it'd be another BBC wedding.

The whole billing thing has been a problem though... After I go to such pains to convince them I'm not a professional (mostly to cover my butt if it goes south, I guess) I can hardly turn around and charge them guild rates...

Mu shoots in the last couple of years have all turned out really well (if I say so myself) so I guess it boils down to a confidence issue for me...

But the trend, in all areas of the service industry - not just photography, has been to give more and more for less and less.

Educate the consumer? I'm afraid they're being educated already, and it's all wrong...

Jamie

**Ash** · 10-13-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Thoughts?

Brilliantly articulated Peter.
You have your work cut out for you educating clients.
You've been in the business long enough not to settle for a cheap job in exchange for a CD. A firm principle to go by.

In offering all of my clients the preferred option of purchasing a complete package, including printed album, I find most declining and just wishing for images on CD. I do know the clientelle I am serving and offer them packages accordingly. Being less inclined to reject those clients, I take on those jobs (because I enjoy it) and set out to please both them and myself with the results.

Doing it for a living would give me a different spin, and I would adopt more of your approach, Peter, to maintain both profit and a signature standard. It's a tough business, but good when done well.

schmik · 10-13-2009, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by opfor

We had three different guests at the reception explain to us that since they had obviously taken more pictures than we had, that they obviously had done a better job. (funny how I didn't see one of them change a lens or a card during the day, but they all took well over a "thousand" pics each...

) That was just the three with DSLRs.

They probably got some good pictures. If you trained 3 monkeys to point a DSLR and press the button, in auto mode, I'm sure there would be a fair number of keepers.

Most people never appreciate the skills required until they try it themselves. It does actually look easy to take photos. The heros even know the B&G and who is who at the wedding/reception. That actually gives them an advantage. They feel like the pro is overpriced.... how hard can it be figure out how to work the camera and then turn up and shoot? It's not like they have a 4 year qualification to ensure they know what to do.

Don't shoot me... just playing devil advocate.

mike

Wheatfield · 10-13-2009, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by schmik

They probably got some good pictures. If you trained 3 monkeys to point a DSLR and press the button, in auto mode, I'm sure there would be a fair number of keepers.

Most people never appreciate the skills required until they try it themselves. It does actually look easy to take photos. The heros even know the B&G and who is who at the wedding/reception. That actually gives them an advantage. They feel like the pro is overpriced.... how hard can it be figure out how to work the camera and then turn up and shoot? It's not like they have a 4 year qualification to ensure they know what to do.

Don't shoot me... just playing devil advocate.

mike

Therein lies the problem. Pretty much every trade has some sort of accreditation program that you have to take and pass to become a journeyman of that trade.
Wanna be a pro photographer?
Rent a camera and print some business cards.

10-08-2009, 04:21 AM	#33
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	A possible solution Well there is a certain amount of that going on of course. It's happened here as well. But that's a very small percentage I think. The real issue is that the market is flooded with shooters. Digital is free once you own a camera. So on the face of it, it seems cheap and easy to get into this if you are only thinking about the money you can make. In response to a couple of points made earlier, I am a salesman. I've been doing that for almost as long as I've been shooting. It was the perfect job because of the flexibility. I worked as an independent sales rep and could completely control my hours. So it allowed the time to work on photography nearly full time. My sales 'skills' don't help me much in all honesty. When the overriding factor to many clients is cost, that is not selling. It's a race to zero and the guy willing to drop his drawers the furthest, gets the deal. But of course he/she doesn't win in the end. They gave away the work and the margins (if any) are gone. I agree with Will that we need to educate most clients. But even that is a tough battle. I had a couple here last night who didn't book me. With these people I really don't want their business either with the mind set they have. I always have a selection of my gear to show them. A couple of studio lights that are portable, the 3 cameras (K20D's and a K10D) with grips, lenses and AF400T's attached. I always explain that I have this much gear in case something fails. A shutter could crap out or a lens stop working. Their day won't be ruined as a result etc. She loved the work and the albums I showed her. He seemed to appreciate it. Near the end, I thought she was close to saying yes and we had nailed down the package, or so I thought. Then he chimes in to say, I'm a photographer as well and you do a nice job but would you consider a cheaper price and just cover the service and a few formal shots and leave the rest up to us and friends? Say an hourly rate for 3 hours? Zero value in the prints, albums and products I'd shown them. My answer shocked him and disappointed her. I think, had he not been the "hero" at the end, we would have come to a fair deal. (In sales we called the friend who gets involved at the end of a deal, the hero. He's the guy who drives the deal down (or often kills it) with some comment and when they are back in the car, driving home, the hero says "see how much I saved you by coming along".) So I simply said, if the value of the work is not in the quality of the images you get to last you a lifetime and you feel photography as basically all the same from everyone, then you should find the cheapest photographer you can and book him. I don't think we would be a good fit. I value the relationship I develop with clients and feel that the connection between the client and photographer has a lot to do with the quality and vision captured in those prints. I'm not your guy. And so they left. I wouldn't want that deal anyway after that. Pass them a CD and get a couple hundred bucks. Nope. So there's the issue right now. There's more and more photographers out there "educating" the clients that it's a price driven service. Like ads on TV for the cheapest set of winter tires (or is that tyres?). Not long ago price was almost not part of the conversation. It was about the work, vision, creative process and all that. If they liked what you did, they hired you and figured out how to pay for it later. I sure hope it's not going the way of the music business. If so, then it's time to find something else to do and the client is the one who looses the most. They get their BBC wedding. A possible solution: I have considered one thing though but haven't figured out exactly how to do it. I'll shoot the wedding for a small deposit and put the shots up on a sharing service like Smugmug for the B&G to proof. Each shot has a signature. Then the fee for shots is say $25.00 each. The average client will probably want 100 shots or so. The deposit is a "credit" toward the shots they want. It's risky and I could easily shoot the thing for next to nothing, but if the idea works, it would drive the cheap shooters out of the market. Consider that the cheap guy produces 3 shots the B&G likes (like the BBC shooter) and the booking deposit is $250.00. So they use up the credit on the few shots they like and don't get anything more because the work sucks. He's not going to shoot very many weddings after a few of those. But if I have 200 very good shots to show them and they want the majority of them, then I can make a decent living off it since I'm getting paid based on my skill. I can offer a few other things at certain price levels and basically give the same services, just paid a different way. It would certainly drive the crappy shooters out of the market. Why would anyone shoot a wedding for $250 or so? Even to the discount photog (or my term has been "weekend warrior"), that is not worth the time or effort. It does however, force me and other serious shooters to "raise the bar" for each client. Providing a so-so package will get you very little in the bank. Then add an A La Carte price menu for other products. Albums, enlargements and so on. The idea came from the school pictures we have every year. They send out this package of watermarked prints every year and we choose the photos we want and the price package. The whole thing is shot on speculation they will sell a certain amount of work at each school. So they shoot the thing for nothing and let the quality of the work do the job for them. Thoughts? Last edited by Peter Zack; 10-08-2009 at 04:39 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Time Lapsed photography BBC style	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	2	06-25-2010 04:29 PM
6 hour BBC documentary - Genius of Photography series	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	5	01-09-2010 05:37 AM
touching story: my way of helping future photography students - long read	Marc Langille	Photographic Technique	4	02-25-2008 06:58 PM
Photography can make a difference - A moving story	Peter Zack	Photographic Technique	3	12-22-2007 03:40 AM
Totally imprumptu wedding! (story + photos)	mikerigel	Post Your Photos!	28	07-20-2007 04:57 AM

10-07-2009, 10:05 PM	#31
lurchlarson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 681	One thing I was thinking...this example of the poor wedding photography is yet another example of the Photographer being more important than the gear. But for immature kicks'n'giggles he was probably shooting with a Canikon.

10-08-2009, 03:17 AM	#32
opfor Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 276	One thing that no one has mentioned is that this story is from the UK. Over here they have a peculiar term for bogus workmen called a "cowboy". The usual train of thought is that someone opens a "business", usually with a mobile phone for a contact. They then conduct their business just long enough to take enough deposits to make it worth while, then move to a new location with a new e-mail, mobile number, and business name. Due to local laws, a new business is not responsible for the obligations of a failed business and taking the cowboy to court to prove fraud and get your money back costs more than the money you lost. Usually it is related to people doing small home improvement/appliance installation/construction projects. Take a deposit, make a small show of trying to do something, stall like crazy and then skip town before too many lawsuits get started and start the cycle all over again. Could it be that the cowboys have branched out into the photo business?

10-08-2009, 08:09 AM	#34
opfor Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 276	I think your hero factor hits a lot of it right on the head. Never heard it explained that way but it fits very well. The wife and I recently did a wedding for one of her friends. Basically we provided two albums for the base fee and didn't have any after sales as there were too many "heros" who brought cameras to the wedding. We had three different guests at the reception explain to us that since they had obviously taken more pictures than we had, that they obviously had done a better job. (funny how I didn't see one of them change a lens or a card during the day, but they all took well over a "thousand" pics each... ) That was just the three with DSLRs. Obviously we should have done the right thing and given the B&G their money back, I think that was the impression we were supposed to have gotten... (as a side note, we were trying to give two of our sons some shutter time and experience so we basically had four cameras going on the day, and they actually had a couple of pics we put in one of the albums) The B&G absolutely loved the formal and informal albums we gave them and we've had queries about shooting some more weddings in the new year. I just don't like doing them much any more unless we are doing them for friends. Too many "heros", trouble, and time spent for what people want to pay these days. As you say, you have to spend more time explaining why it works the way it does than spending time deciding what they want these days.

10-08-2009, 08:42 AM	#35
Classvino Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 132	Originally posted by Gooshin couple of weddings ago, i overheard one of the brides maids state that "i cant believe someone gets paid to shoot photos" I've heard similar things... I think that the underlying issue is that the level of respect that a good photographer could reasonably expect has been eroded by the availability of inexpensive, somewhat decent cameras. Everybody seems to have one... (Not counting phones or webcams, or my DSLR's, there are 4 digi-cameras (all > 6mp) in my house in regular use.) Now a slight comfession... My apologies if you feel they're warranted, but I might be a little close to what Peter refers to as a "weekend warrior". I don't look for business or advertise, and only do 2 or 3 weddings a year. When I get asked to do a wedding (and I NEVER volunteer) I do my darnedest to convince them (usually a business associate or 'friend of a friend' etc) to hire a "real" wedding photographer, and failing that, I make sure that all parties involved are aware that I'm not a professional-calibre photographer, and that I accept no responsibility, and make no promises other than to give it my best shot. After recounting a couple of wedding-photo-horror stories, I then make them sign an agreement to show they understand my stipulations. This weeds out at least half of the people that ask me. I agree with Peter that the weekend warriors aren't helping things any, but I justify myself by stating that if, after all my attempts at dissuasion, they still want my services, if I didn't do it, someone would 'take them for as much as they could, and it'd be another BBC wedding. The whole billing thing has been a problem though... After I go to such pains to convince them I'm not a professional (mostly to cover my butt if it goes south, I guess) I can hardly turn around and charge them guild rates... Mu shoots in the last couple of years have all turned out really well (if I say so myself) so I guess it boils down to a confidence issue for me... But the trend, in all areas of the service industry - not just photography, has been to give more and more for less and less. Educate the consumer? I'm afraid they're being educated already, and it's all wrong... Jamie

10-13-2009, 01:22 PM	#36
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Peter Zack Thoughts? Brilliantly articulated Peter. You have your work cut out for you educating clients. You've been in the business long enough not to settle for a cheap job in exchange for a CD. A firm principle to go by. In offering all of my clients the preferred option of purchasing a complete package, including printed album, I find most declining and just wishing for images on CD. I do know the clientelle I am serving and offer them packages accordingly. Being less inclined to reject those clients, I take on those jobs (because I enjoy it) and set out to please both them and myself with the results. Doing it for a living would give me a different spin, and I would adopt more of your approach, Peter, to maintain both profit and a signature standard. It's a tough business, but good when done well.

10-13-2009, 05:41 PM	#37
schmik Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sydney Aus Photos: Gallery Posts: 527	Originally posted by opfor We had three different guests at the reception explain to us that since they had obviously taken more pictures than we had, that they obviously had done a better job. (funny how I didn't see one of them change a lens or a card during the day, but they all took well over a "thousand" pics each... ) That was just the three with DSLRs. They probably got some good pictures. If you trained 3 monkeys to point a DSLR and press the button, in auto mode, I'm sure there would be a fair number of keepers. Most people never appreciate the skills required until they try it themselves. It does actually look easy to take photos. The heros even know the B&G and who is who at the wedding/reception. That actually gives them an advantage. They feel like the pro is overpriced.... how hard can it be figure out how to work the camera and then turn up and shoot? It's not like they have a 4 year qualification to ensure they know what to do. Don't shoot me... just playing devil advocate. mike

10-13-2009, 08:30 PM	#38
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by schmik They probably got some good pictures. If you trained 3 monkeys to point a DSLR and press the button, in auto mode, I'm sure there would be a fair number of keepers. Most people never appreciate the skills required until they try it themselves. It does actually look easy to take photos. The heros even know the B&G and who is who at the wedding/reception. That actually gives them an advantage. They feel like the pro is overpriced.... how hard can it be figure out how to work the camera and then turn up and shoot? It's not like they have a 4 year qualification to ensure they know what to do. Don't shoot me... just playing devil advocate. mike Therein lies the problem. Pretty much every trade has some sort of accreditation program that you have to take and pass to become a journeyman of that trade. Wanna be a pro photographer? Rent a camera and print some business cards.