Selling Portraits or Scared by all the cheap prices

[hotrod4x5]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

See I don't think you're a butthole at all. But this really makes you sound like one. If I saw this in photog's contract I was considering, I'd laugh and tell them to leave.

When was the last time you contracted a wedding photographer?

It is VERY common, and it is my contract too. Not because of lost sales, but because they disrupt things. I usually have about 30 mins after a ceremony to get all the formals, family shots and bride and groom shots. If I have other photographers shooting at the same time as me, it slows everything down. It also causes wandering eyes, which look terrible in portraits. You also run the risk of flash overexposure, if their flash goes off at the same time. (this has happened to me at a cake cutting)

Can you imagine I set up a pose, take my shots, then get asked, oh please wait, I need to get my shots too. Then they shoot, they chimp, and they want to do it again. Instead of 2 minutes per pose, it takes 5-10 mins. Time is money and the bride and groom paid me to take professional portraits in a certain time period. They want to get to their reception, not spend 90 mins taking photos after the ceremony.

At receptions, I relax the rules, and really don't stop anyone. If someone is getting in my way, then I might say something, but at receptions this usually doesn't happen.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Songman45

The purpose of contractural agreements is so each party has reasonable expectations. If a B&G is unwilling to contract for exclusivity, they need to go on up the road and find a photographer who doesn't mind working in a flash fest. Just like there are low-ball customers willing to have the cheapest coverage, there are customers who can view the photography as a business arrangement.

I wonder how the Reception DJ would react to cousin Sam showing up with his home stereo and an mp3 player and setting up in the corner. Oh, not to disrupt the paid DJ just because he likes to play with his blastin box and wants to offer some of the guests an option in music taste? Or if Aunt Margaret shoved the caterer's food to one side of the buffet so she could let folks have a taste of her green bean cassarole.

The problem with your analogy is the effect on the client. Cousin Sam will be bothering the guests with more music that doesn't match. And, if it doesn't affect the current DJ's effects or sound area, do you really think he/she is going to care? He's paid to play music. He's playing it. No effect on income whatsoever.

Same with the caterer and Aunt Margaret. You paid for 100 plates, you're charged for 100 plates, regardless if everyone goes straight to Aunt Margaret's bowls of green bean casserole.

When I shoot a flat class equestrain event I have exclusive right to center ring. I cannot have cameras prohibited from the entire venue but I'll definately enforce my contractural right to be the only photographer in the ring. If I'm shooting a wedding and I contract for exclusive rights in the cerimony and chapel, I'd for sure enforce my rights. If not, why would we bother having contracts at all? Surely you don't think the contract is for the benefit of the customer alone?

Again, different arrangement. Do you really think Grandma is going to "outshoot" you? And do you think you'll end up losing income because Grandma is behind you with her prosumer dSLR? If so, you need to model your contract anticipating a loss of income based on that...or start marketing yourself a bit better so people can actually see the difference in your photos.

Do what you want. Seriously. With attitudes like this, you're going to end up putting yourselves out of business anyway. Of course, you'll only be a victim here and won't actually be able to see the cause of the failure. Instead of looking at the big picture and finding a way to remarket yourself based on a changing industry, you'll rant about how someone is putting you out of business.

Adapt, ignore or quit.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by hotrod4x5

It is VERY common, and it is my contract too. Not because of lost sales, but because they disrupt things. I usually have about 30 mins after a ceremony to get all the formals, family shots and bride and groom shots. If I have other photographers shooting at the same time as me, it slows everything down. It also causes wandering eyes, which look terrible in portraits. You also run the risk of flash overexposure, if their flash goes off at the same time. (this has happened to me at a cake cutting)

Can you imagine I set up a pose, take my shots, then get asked, oh please wait, I need to get my shots too. Then they shoot, they chimp, and they want to do it again. Instead of 2 minutes per pose, it takes 5-10 mins. Time is money and the bride and groom paid me to take professional portraits in a certain time period. They want to get to their reception, not spend 90 mins taking photos after the ceremony.

I don't have it in my contract. I do have a nice "here's what is going to happen at your ceremony" sheet I give to clients, though, and explain about the other photographers. It's on my checklist to discuss on the rehearsal night. How do you want to handle it? Here's what will happen if you do this, this or this. You have this much time to work with. What would you like me to do?

It's worked so far. I still like Mark's technique and have used it when the bride isn't quite sure what she wants.

[jfrancho]

When was the last time you contracted a wedding photographer?

It is VERY common, and it is my contract too.

That's bunch of crap - its a wedding for gods sake. Guests can and should take pictures. You're a pro, you should be able to work around/through/over/along side them. Your work should also stand head and shoulders above the snappers and the DSLR nerds. If they get in the way during formals, let the bride, or whoever wrote the check know that the longer they shoot, the longer it will take. She'll handle it. The bride generally doesn't want to sit and pose for aunt Martha while they are paying your bill. This where a time limit in the contract is MUCH more effective. $Money$ is a language both the clients and guests will understand, once you explain to them that there is a time limit and they're holding you up.

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by hotrod4x5

When was the last time you contracted a wedding photographer?

Last Saturday. LOL.

[jfrancho]

Besides, I thought this was about portrait sessions. When did the elite wedding shooters get invited?

Here's the thing, and this why it sounds like elitism to me. You say it isn't about exclusivity or even about print sales. You claim its about time. Then put THAT in your contract. When I see something written about exclusivity in a contract, then I assume that clause is to maintain exclusivity. You are putting an entirely different spin on why its there. No wonder photogs end up in court! Its misleading. If you want something, then put it in writing the way you want it. Otherwise, you're using vague and misleading language to develop verbiage, instead of laying out clear terms.

[hotrod4x5]

I'm not going to get into a shouting match with you guys. I didn't call your ideas crap, or disparage you in anyway. I guess I'll go back to the forums where people want to have civil discussions.

[jfrancho]

Oh great, another swan song....

I'm just telling you that 9 out of 10 dentists concur that its an unreasonable expectation to forbid others from taking photographs at a wedding. Sorry if you don't like the way I type. I talk like this too.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by hotrod4x5

I'm not going to get into a shouting match with you guys. I didn't call your ideas crap, or disparage you in anyway. I guess I'll go back to the forums where people want to have civil discussions.

"Civil" is a relative term. And if you look at your post questioning John's statement, you did imply his ideas had no merit and that he was out of touch with the times ("when was the last time you...").

What I don't get is why everyone clings to ideas that others don't and then calls the changers of the system "out of touch" and "ruining the market". That's what competition is all about. If it wasn't working...we wouldn't be seeing these changes.

That, in itself, should tell you something.

[jfrancho]

I suppose it would add insult to injury that I only charged $1200 for 6 hours. Tack on the print order, and it should work out pretty well for me. Another case of the client not even considering a $2500 photog, and weren't even going to use one. I'm a bad, bad man Jerry.

[RodeoHammer]

Rodeoshooter & songman I agree with you too many photographers give it away. A old time photographer here does 2-3 wedding a year for 20K. He does no formal pics he takes what he wants when he wants. If he is bothered too much by people getting in his way he has and will walk out no refund.

[Mark McCall]

Here we go again.

Ok guys, this argument about walking out over poachers is complete nonsense.

Most of the people at the wedding will never see your finished album. They won't see the contract. They didn't attend your initial or final consultation with the bride. They'll only see your behavior at the wedding.

It matters none that you have a "walking clause" in your contract.

Walking out is unprofessional. Period.
Doesn't do a thing for your reputation either.
None of those bridesmaids will hire you for their wedding after watching you blow a gasket over a poacher.

Most importantly, your opening yourself for litigation because some states will not allow you to leave an event you've been paid to photograph.
Even if it's in your contract.
Laws vary from state to state, but not all contract terms are allowed by all states.

There are ways of dealing with poachers that keep you from being the bad guy...and that keep you from being sued.

Walking out is not the way to handle it.

[mcbit]

I don't know what model you work for print sales in the US but I have attended quite a few weddings outside of the US and would propose this as a fairly typical scenario.

Less than 10% of the guests at the wedding would want or receive any professional prints as this tends to be the realm of the B&G and their parents. I don't have and never had any intention of purchasing prints as the best man at several friends weddings or any of my brother's weddings. I really don't need a high quality print of someone else's wedding to hang on my wall or sit on my mantelpiece. What I do have are endless 5x3s (and negs) from my film days which I look at once every 15 years if I'm lucky and more recently a large number of quality digital images tucked away on my hard drive.

65% of the guests have their own cameras with them, mostly P&S but a few (D)SLRs as well (I'm covering film days here too), as this is one of the 5 or 6 times a year that they must have a camera with them: birthdays, Christmas, weddings, funeral, holidays.....

95% of the images will be garbage but the 'snappers' will see every one of them as a 'keeper' and not one of these people has turned up with the intention of 'selling on' any of their own images. These are personal mementos which they will treasure just as much as the 'professional work' that they never had any intention of buying.

In the UK when I was last there you could not stop anyone taking pictures in a public place. I could quite easily go into a church or church grounds and take photos of anyone in there without fear of hinderance, unless of course I was causing a disturbance.

Do you really see these people as any sort of threat or competition? I think its a bit sad if you do.