Photography Isn't Dead. The business model is.

AnCatDubh

Title of this article via @TrevorCurrent on twitter.

While photographers are hungry for technological and engineering advancement and adopt such advancements with vigor, there would appear to be a disconnect from business models which haven't really changed (ever?).

As per the article, some people make a mint (small mint maybe) from stock imagery, some people curse its existence.

An interesting thought perhaps.

smelltheglove

He has a point, and the point can be applied to other areas rather than just stock. When it comes to weddings couples are no longer interested in the old model of buying an album and paying for prints, they want good work but they want ALL the work included in the package, something that many photographers have yet to adapt to.

eas

I only gave it a quick skim, but I don't think he's uncovered anything new there. Move with the trends or get left behind. Same as any business really.

BlastedGlute

That's a really interesting point there glove. About the wedding photographers I mean. Can you elaborate on this a bit? What do you think is the most ideal and modern business model for wedding/non-corporate event photographers?(I'm not being sarcastic I'm new to photographer and still trying to figure out what the preferred model would be among photographers in the hope that potential clients would come to expect this and therefore both sides would be happy from the outset!

Lagnagoushee

The article reflects some of the ideas put forward in a book which I read recently called "The Linked Photographers' Guide to Online Marketing and Social Media"
As the septuagenarian says ......"The times they are a changin'"

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Linked-Photographers-Guide-Online-Marketing-Social-Media-Lindsay-Adler/9781435455085

smelltheglove

BlastedGlute wrote: »

That's a really interesting point there glove. About the wedding photographers I mean. Can you elaborate on this a bit? What do you think is the most ideal and modern business model for wedding/non-corporate event photographers?(I'm not being sarcastic I'm new to photographer and still trying to figure out what the preferred model would be among photographers in the hope that potential clients would come to expect this and therefore both sides would be happy from the outset!

Well when I started out a few years ago clients would ask as one of their first questions, do you supply a disc of shots. NOw they include do you supply a disc of shots in high resolution. Clients do not want to pay for photographic coverage and 20-30 shots in an album, they want an album with a disc of all the images and I would imagine, were I to say they would be charged per print after the wedding I would be shown the door. Rewind 10 years ago a disc of shots would have been unheard of and the norm was to charge 20 upwards for any 8 x 10 print ordered on top of the wedding album.

I spoke with an advertising company yesterday, happy with my bookings for the year the rep was also pleasently surprised knowing Im not in the business long. She did confirm to me that the guys that have been at it years have reported back that although they are still getting the work they are not getting the money they used to, they are working a hell of a lot more and giving more for less, and they are the ones who have moved with the times.

Now I am sure there are exceptions to this, in demand photographers may be able to name their price for coverage and everything be extra afterwards but for the normal working photog I doubt this is the case.

(Guys correct me if you think I am wrong - this is my opinion)

RoryW

smelltheglove wrote: »

..... not getting the money they used to, they are working a hell of a lot more and giving more for less.......

same as many businesses in the current business environment so

K_user

smelltheglove wrote: »

Rewind 10 years ago a disc of shots would have been unheard of and the norm was to charge 20 upwards for any 8 x 10 print ordered on top of the wedding album.

I was having this exact conversation with my wife last night.

Our wedding was 10 years ago. We never saw the proofs, we were given what we were given and anything else was extra - rreeaalllyy extra. Meaning we have f**k all in terms of photographs of our wedding. And this was from a guy that my parents had known for years.

Fast forward to today and my sister-in-law and brother-in-law are both getting married next year, not too each other! The photographers that they have been to see are falling over each other with offers. From engagement photos, to cds with the photographs on them.

The business has completely changed.

Course my wife, having no interest in the world of photography or those that earn money from it, is really p*ssed off. She wants to know how our old photographer thinks it fair to consider charging us a tidy sum per photograph, that are only taking up space on a computer somewhere, while today people get handed everything as part of the package.

eas

K_user wrote: »

I was having this exact conversation with my wife last night.

The photographers that they have been to see are falling over each other with offers. From engagement photos, to cds with the photographs on them.

It's this race to the bottom that is hurting everyone involved really, obviosly what happens when supply outstrips demand. Like I've said in the past, photography seems to be a "go to" career for people in need these days, and it's showing in many ways. Overall, that's the point of the article I guess.

With me, couples do get the digital negatives, but I don't give them away. They're included as part of the package that they're paying for.

Believe it or not, I also sell a good few prints. Point being, there're different markets out there and each market requires a different approach.

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

(Guys correct me if you think I am wrong - this is my opinion)

I don't think you are Rachel. We were given a present of a family portrait last year, and I was talking to the photographer (nice chap, but expensive IMHO). We were talking about the older gen photographers vs the younger gen, and he pointed out that photography is - as we all know - roughly divided 50/50 between the actual shoots and the PP afterwards.

Some of the older guys haven't grasped this, and some are not familiar with computers - let alone software. On a side not, we had paid over €420 for the sitting and framed print, but there wasn't even a couple of complimentary 6x4s (for which the price was €40:eek:).

So there is a kind of crossover to the point that even some of the YOUNGER togs don't seem to grasp that they need to give more value for money. For example, if he had thrown in a couple of 6x4s I would have been lauding him on here - instead of criticising him.

eas

Freddie59 wrote: »

So there is a kind of crossover to the point that even some of the YOUNGER togs don't seem to grasp that they need to give more value for money. For example, if he had thrown in a couple of 6x4s I would have been lauding him on here - instead of criticising him.

See that's the thing, maybe he doesnt want his business to be known as good value? Maybe he's doing alright without giving his work away for free? Consumers need to realize sometimes businesses are built around the fact that they're a premium offering, and sometimes their custom is not really suited. I'd love to eat in Shanahan's every week but I can't afford it so I go to Eddie Rockets instead.

I can tell you a few stories of people I know who run businesses (not photography in particualr) and put prices up to throttle the amount of work that was coming in. Guess what? They got more business and had to hire more staff.

I do agree that most people are looking for better value these days and most busineses are doing whatthey can to give it, however I don't think it should expected around every corner.

Freddie59

eas wrote: »

I do agree that most people are looking for better value these days and most busineses are doing whatthey can to give it, however I don't think it should expected around every corner.

I wouldn't necessarily agree though. I think €40 for a 6x4 print was OTT TBH.

stcstc

Better value doesnt always mean cheaper or cheapest

in fact generally doesnt

eas

Freddie59 wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree though. I think €40 for a 6x4 print was OTT TBH.

did you even read my post?

magicbastarder

eas wrote: »

It's this race to the bottom

offering more service is not a race to the bottom, though. more so in wedding photography than a lot of other areas, since wedding photography is a 'closed' offering, in that they're not going to go to a competitor after the fact for extra services.

if i was to engage the services of a wedding photographer, i would expect the price i would pay would be a function of the service offered (and time involved in providing that service) and the talent of the photographer.
i may have mentioned that i was talking to someone once who had been on a photography course in the UK with a chap who had a minimum callout fee of STG£5,500. his portfolio was fantastic, but he admitted that one of the biggest factors in what made his portfolio good is that the sort of people who can afford six grand on a photographer are the sort of people getting married in the best spots, with the most expensive dresses, and who were able to spend a lot of money making themselves look good.

shanahans is way overpriced, btw. if i was able to afford to eat there every day, i'd go to somewhere cheaper and more enjoyable (the green hen and le bon crubeen FTW).

eas

magicbastarder wrote: »

offering more service is not a race to the bottom,

I didnt say offering more services was a race to the bottom. The comment was directed at the comment about people falling over themselves to give things away for free in order to secure bookings.

smelltheglove

magicbastarder wrote: »

i may have mentioned that i was talking to someone once who had been on a photography course in the UK with a chap who had a minimum callout fee of STG£5,500. his portfolio was fantastic, but he admitted that one of the biggest factors in what made his portfolio good is that the sort of people who can afford six grand on a photographer are the sort of people getting married in the best spots, with the most expensive dresses, and who were able to spend a lot of money making themselves look good.

Very good point, I started off covering smaller weddings in smaller less expensive venues and now I am covering weddings in places like Lyrath Estate and Castle Durrow, obviously my images from weddings in venues like these, with all the extras and stunning decor are going to appear to be much better than the images from restaurant and pub weddings. One of my best preperation samples are from a girl whose parents completely refurbished and redecorated specifically for the upcoming wedding so the house she was getting ready in was much brighter and looked much better than many hotel rooms I have seen brides getting ready in.

The likes of destination photographers who can charge 10k upwards to cover weddings all over the world are going to have samples from some of the most stunning locations because they type of people who pay them will also pay thousands just for room decor and specific themes. Its all well and good taking a good photograph but the background can make a great shot stunning! As one client said to me in our booking meeting this week 'I guess its the luck of the draw, if you have the nice background the picture comes easier'!

Luckycharms_74

smelltheglove wrote: »

Very good point, I started off covering smaller weddings in smaller less expensive venues and now I am covering weddings in places like Lyrath Estate and Castle Durrow, obviously my images from weddings in venues like these, with all the extras and stunning decor are going to appear to be much better than the images from restaurant and pub weddings. One of my best preperation samples are from a girl whose parents completely refurbished and redecorated specifically for the upcoming wedding so the house she was getting ready in was much brighter and looked much better than many hotel rooms I have seen brides getting ready in.

The likes of destination photographers who can charge 10k upwards to cover weddings all over the world are going to have samples from some of the most stunning locations because they type of people who pay them will also pay thousands just for room decor and specific themes. Its all well and good taking a good photograph but the background can make a great shot stunning! As one client said to me in our booking meeting this week 'I guess its the luck of the draw, if you have the nice background the picture comes easier'!

You got a link for your website

Borderfox

I had another photographer contact me for a price on a wedding and I said X, he also asked if I wouldnt mind giving him the raw files to which I said yes and then I mentioned if he wanted to process them himself the price of the coverage will drop to Y and he was to archive the files himself. For most commercial customers I cant have rules in stone (except they pay before they receive the files) and a certain amount of flexibility is needed in these days to stand out from the crowd.

eas

Borderfox wrote: »

I had another photographer contact me for a price on a wedding and I said X, he also asked if I wouldnt mind giving him the raw files to which I said yes and then I mentioned if he wanted to process them himself the price of the coverage will drop to Y and he was to archive the files himself. For most commercial customers I cant have rules in stone (except they pay before they receive the files) and a certain amount of flexibility is needed in these days to stand out from the crowd.

Not to criticize your decisions on that Keith, but my answer to any of those questions would be a big fat no.

Borderfox

Your entitled to you opinion Eric, I make all my decisions on a case by case method and I have refused it before, I know that when I get married that is what I am looking for.

smelltheglove

Luckycharms_74 wrote: »

You got a link for your website

Lyrath isnt for another 2 weeks and Castle Durrow might not be featured as the couple are quite private, I will meet them tomorrow and see if they will allow me to show some images. My website is in my sig but if you are looking for samples of nice venues I would strongly suggest you check both eas and borderfox sites too and their links are in their sigs also.

eas wrote: »

Not to criticize your decisions on that Keith, but my answer to any of those questions would be a big fat no.

I would be the same, in fact this was queried with me also, maybe it was through boards and I did decline supplying raw, could be the same person, could be someone different.

Borderfox wrote: »

Your entitled to you opinion Eric, I make all my decisions on a case by case method and I have refused it before, I know that when I get married that is what I am looking for.

Each to their own, I am sure you are more than confident in your work, personally I would want the final say on the images as I suppose an image can be ruined by pp so I would be fearful of my shots being shown to people when they could be finished to a higher standard.

Eirebear

Borderfox wrote: »

Your entitled to you opinion Eric, I make all my decisions on a case by case method and I have refused it before, I know that when I get married that is what I am looking for.

Really?

I'm not sure i could have been bothered processing my own wedding pictures to be honest, and to a certain extent i would have found it disrespectful to the photographer if i had.

Obviously i am not accusing the other photographer of being disrespectful to you, as you say, take it on a case by case basis.

And of course, turning down work isnt always the best idea either...

smelltheglove

There are numerous reasons though why you should / could turn down work. I turned down 2 enquiries last week simply down to distance, Cork and Mayo. Then there is also the fact that if you meet with a couple and you don't click, for both of your sakes it is best not to take the job.

Eirebear

smelltheglove wrote: »

There are numerous reasons though why you should / could turn down work. I turned down 2 enquiries last week simply down to distance, Cork and Mayo. Then there is also the fact that if you meet with a couple and you don't click, for both of your sakes it is best not to take the job.

I'm not saying you shouldnt turn down work, for whatever reasons.

What i was trying to say, is that Borderfox had obviously wieghed up the pro's and cons and felt that taking the work on was a good idea.

magicbastarder

smelltheglove wrote: »

Each to their own, I am sure you are more than confident in your work, personally I would want the final say on the images as I suppose an image can be ruined by pp so I would be fearful of my shots being shown to people when they could be finished to a higher standard.

there's the argument that being known to be good at taking photos and also being flexible is worth more to your reputation that being good and not being flexible re RAW; it's a tradeoff between the risk that the customer will ruin the shots vs. being seen to provide what the customer wants.
i suspect that a lot of people on these boards would prefer have the RAW files, given the choice.

i'd be curious as to how much the customer's own copies of the shots vs. the shots you would choose to display yourself in your own portfolio would influence potential customers.

eas

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's the argument that being known to be good at taking photos and also being flexible is worth more to your reputation that being good and not being flexible re RAW;

If there is an argement it's the same as the argument about doing work for free or credit, basically put forward by people who think there's big rewards for doing things like that. IMO it's just not good practice to agree to any of those terms for many reasons. There's a difference between being flexible for clients and f*&cing yourself.

smelltheglove

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd be curious as to how much the customer's own copies of the shots vs. the shots you would choose to display yourself in your own portfolio would influence potential customers.

At the moment maybe 50% of new bookings coming in for me are client referrals so I would only imagine that bad finishing of an image would cost me work, at the end of the day friends will only see what the couple show them!

As for most people on boards requesting RAW, maybe on the photography forum but the general population dont know the difference between RAW and jpeg so it would not be a regular request.

magicbastarder

smelltheglove wrote: »

the general population dont know the difference between RAW and jpeg so it would not be a regular request.

which would imply that anyone who *does* ask would be knowledgeable.

Eirebear

eas wrote: »

If there is an argement it's the same as the argument about doing work for free or credit, basically put forward by people who think there's big rewards for doing things like that. IMO it's just not good practice to agree to any of those terms for many reasons. There's a difference between being flexible for clients and f*&cing yourself.

I can only assume that in Borderfox's case, that the other photographer is someone whom he believes will do his reputation, or his work, no harm.

Personally its something i would struggle with, but plenty of people work collaboratively within photography.
Is this really any different?

magicbastarder

eas wrote: »

If there is an argement it's the same as the argument about doing work for free or credit, basically put forward by people who think there's big rewards for doing things like that.

it's a different argument. working for free means you are doing more work. handing over the RAW files means you are doing less work.
whatever the merits or demerits of doing it, it's not a comparison which is massively applicable.

smelltheglove

magicbastarder wrote: »

which would imply that anyone who *does* ask would be knowledgeable.

Yes, tehy will be knowledgeable in the difference between raw and jpeg but it does not mean they will automatically be knowledgable with processing techniques, especially the type of techniques that you yourself favour and another approach to this would be, if they apply a completely different style, although good and you DO receive referrals you cannot deliver the same style as they are asking for, you may not have even seen the style of editing.

Eirebear

smelltheglove wrote: »

Yes, tehy will be knowledgeable in the difference between raw and jpeg but it does not mean they will automatically be knowledgable with processing techniques, especially the type of techniques that you yourself favour and another approach to this would be, if they apply a completely different style, although good and you DO receive referrals you cannot deliver the same style as they are asking for, you may not have even seen the style of editing.

Yeah, i think this is pretty much key to the whole thing.

As i said earlier, the customer is obviously someone who Borderfox feels he can trust, and will do his work and reputation no harm, so in this case it can only be assumed that the customer has a similar style to him.

The other issue, for me, lies with the fact that the customer is a photographer.
It can be said that they have worked collaboratively on this wedding, Borderfox capturing the shots, and the customer making all the decisions which come afterwards.
It creates a bit of a mess in terms of copyright etc (which i'm sure BF will cover himself with) however for the less experienced photographer this could be a real minefield.

eas

Eirebear wrote: »

I can only assume that in Borderfox's case, that the other photographer is someone whom he believes will do his reputation, or his work, no harm.

Of course, Borderfox knows the situation he is in and I respect that.

magicbastarder

would you supply JPEGs?

i'm getting married next year. if we hire a photographer (we're not really that pushed about hiring one), i'll be asking for the RAW files.
i have a couple of friends who are professional photographers (though not usually of weddings) and that obviously skews what is available to me should i hire one of them. but if one offered the RAW files, and the other didn't, that'd be a huge factor in my choice.

jpb1974

We're not really that pushed about hiring one

Don't want to go off topic but may I ask why?

I'm really just curious as to why someone who is interested in photography would not want a wedding photographer. Just asking the question, not passing judgement at all. I think I might actually be the same if I was planning to get married.

magicbastarder

well, it's not going to be a full blown white wedding with church and hotel reception, it'll be a bit more relaxed than that. suckling pig on a spit in a garden sort of reception.
there'll be a few people with cameras there (one graphic designer, one pro photographer (with a background in travel photography) and two artists, so a few 'visual' people) with proven track records, and we'd probably be happy with a few candid photos.

the thing is, the pro would probably end up taking several hundred photos anyway, and they'd most likely be excellent, and i'd feel guilty taking the shots from him for free.

eas

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a different argument. working for free means you are doing more work. handing over the RAW files means you are doing less work.

I'm not comparing scenario per-se. I was comparing the short sighted logic that exists in both arguments.

If someone wants to be known as the shoot & burn expert for all the DIY photographers out there, then this is how to do it. It could be an excellent business model.

To me, agreeing to doing something like the above devalues my work and damages my brand, regardless of how they turn out. Obviously there would be situations where I'd feel the risk is considerably less, but they would be far and few between.

For what it's worth, I've shot a few photographers weddings over the years, and I've never been asked to hand over the raw files.

Eirebear has a good point about collaboration. I've 2nd shot for other wedding photographers and handed over my RAW files to them, and have had photographers 2nd shoot for me and hand me over their raw files. This is entirely different than accepting to hand over raw files to customers for the sake of being flexible.

Again, none of the above is meant to be critical of Bordefox in particular, as stated he's obviously comfortable with who he's dealing with.

smelltheglove

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you supply JPEGs?

i'm getting married next year. if we hire a photographer (we're not really that pushed about hiring one), i'll be asking for the RAW files.
i have a couple of friends who are professional photographers (though not usually of weddings) and that obviously skews what is available to me should i hire one of them. but if one offered the RAW files, and the other didn't, that'd be a huge factor in my choice.

Yes, always. I supply a disc of fully finished jpegs to all my clients. If they edit them in such a way that I dislike and I find out, I can approach them about this. I always have a full contract signed and sealed, uploading of the images is only allowed when using a folder of images I also supply with watermarks, again if I find images uploaded without watermarks I can request those taken down and replaced with watermarked images.

I may, depending on the person, allow editing of my jpegs but I would always want to insist that I have first gone through them and at least ensured the crop is right and the exposure is spot on.

Again my opinion, Borderfox is obviously very very staisfied with his standard and happy to release raw files.

Borderfox

Eirebear wrote: »

I can only assume that in Borderfox's case, that the other photographer is someone whom he believes will do his reputation, or his work, no harm.

Personally its something i would struggle with, but plenty of people work collaboratively within photography.
Is this really any different?

No Harm at all

I am very happy with what comes out of the camera, thats where I want most of the work to happen. I am sure that most other photog's aim for this?

smelltheglove

Borderfox wrote: »

No Harm at all

I am very happy with what comes out of the camera, thats where I want most of the work to happen. I am sure that most other photog's aim for this?

Yes out of the camera is most important, although with my weird eyes I often need to crop as I dont seem to see the whole viewfinder, I suppose its both the stigmatism and wearing glasses that causes this though.

Eirebear

Borderfox wrote: »

No Harm at all

I am very happy with what comes out of the camera, thats where I want most of the work to happen. I am sure that most other photog's aim for this?

It's always the aim, but even then - every photographer has his/her own style in terms of what comes straight off camera no?

One thing i've found over the last couple of years is that i tend to frame things a little too tightly, it looks great straight out of camera - but when it comes to resizing things it can be a problem because i struggle to find a crop.

Borderfox

Its an interesting topic and I enjoy hearing other peoples points of view on the subject, I find that sometimes outside of events it can be a lonely profession and hearing from other people in the same situation and how they deal with it does help

dave66

smelltheglove wrote: »

There are numerous reasons though why you should / could turn down work.

I completely agree, especially if you are an aspiring amateur, I exhibited some of my work at a local craft fair in my son's school last weekend, I was pleasantly surprised to make a decent number of sales. During the day a parent involved in organising the day asked me if I could do a family portrait & offered to pay me. I said I was flattered but as I'm not experienced in doing portraits and don't have lighting etc that they'd be better off going to a pro, I did offer to get them a name of a pro. Sure, it was tempting to jump in, make a few quid and hope for the best, but I know my limitations and I know a number of pros in my area and didn't want to be taking their business. If she comes back to me I'll put her in contact with a pro I know and hopefully in exchange the pro might let me assist or sit in on the shoot to gain some experience. I guess my thinking is, that if you are going to take money for providing a professional service then you must be certain you can deliver the service.