You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
"This, for example I think of as a great portrait, and so I would probably be influenced by it when deciding what I think is a great portrait photograph."
What about this one?
[img] 
[/img]
clodhopper - Member£800? Let's put that into a bit of perspective. So you've got an entire day at the wedding itself. Then however many hours spent uploading, selecting and editing images. That's easily at least another day, maybe two. Then there's the photographer's overheads; travel etc expenses, insurance, consideration of cost of equipment, etc. £800 is absolute peanuts.
First of all, why have you chopped what I said up & stuck two separate scenario's together....? My brother paid substantially more than £800, but you seem to have lumped that into a different scenario I was explaining about a friend's wedding......?? Either way the outcome from the professional was unsatisfactory to the customer (which was/is my point that 'professional' doesn't guarantee 'not mediocre')....
It was £800 around a decade ago.....and it wasn't the entire day. It was the ceremony & shots afterwards up to the point that everyone went to the reception - so all in all about 3-4hrs absolute max shooting time.
How long to upload, edit and select images??!! A day or two!! WHAT!? As I said previously, surely someone who does this for a living should have the camera & settings dialled in such that the amount of editing is kept to a bare minimum & is done in a batch manner as much as possible based on conditions on the day. I doubt he went through every image & gave it the full 'processing' treatment. The customer shouldn't have to pay for the professional's inefficient methods....
Anyway - regardless - you seem to be missing the point that this bloke was supposedly a professional photographer yet even with all this 'time' he spent on the shoot, all the post-processing, the cost of equipment, the overheads, the insurance blah blah.......he managed to do a less satisfactory job than I managed to do with my new to me D80 & a kit lens.....with no formal training, no overheads, very little post processing & £35 worth of Photobox Photobook.....
The point I was making was that 'professional' doesn't mean the output won't be mediocre, which is I thought geetee was alluding to.....(and he has since replied to).....
Conversely to the examples I listed above the wedding photographer that we used listened to what we wanted, took us through all of the options and explained how he would operate on the day (so we knew what to expect/who his assistant would be etc.), took us through the options for albums etc. so we had a clear idea of what we would pay. On the day he was friendly and polite, put everyone at ease & made sure that he took up as little of our time as possible. he had a clear idea of what he was hoping to achieve with his photo's and he did this well.
Don't get me wrong, I have seen better wedding photos but they are very good & for the money we paid I am very happy with them. They are a great reminder of the event & he managed to capture the formal stuff/the informal stuff/the details just as we wanted. He cost a bit more than £800, but less than my brother paid & the output was substantially better....
So in a very long winded way, I am no way belittling the work of professionals or bemoaning the cost involved in getting professional photos done. But, I am saying that just because you employ a 'professional' it doesn't mean you are assured of a good result....
Interesting example, clodhopper - a picture of a family member that communicates with those outside the family ...
Has she got a carrier bag on her head.....?
In your opinion DrJ, what does it communicate?
I like it quite a lot myself. The way she's looking through the camera, the differing dark tones and the enigmatic expression. I'd like it more if there wasn't some colour noise in the shadows though.
Oh, and the comparison between the whiteness of her skin and the white of the plastic bag too 😀
No. I'm a studio photographer, unless your wedding pics are going in Hello or Harpers they have no value beyond whatever the family and friends attribute to them.
Well that was exactly my point. The family concerned doesn't 'value' the work, for whatever reason. My argument wasn't about value, it was about demands of the job. A studio is a controlled environment, a wedding is not. If you had to produce images of a wedding to the same level as a studio, it would be a whole order of magnitude more difficult.
But of course you mostly don't need to, hence it rarely happens.
The images I produce in the studio help people sell stuff to make money, that's why I'm paid more than a wedding photographer, that and the fact an amateur will struggle to get close to what I produce.
Absolutely and given that I've had some experience recently of working, under guidance of a pro, with sophisticated studio lighting, I really (really) understand just how difficult it is. I always suspected I knew how hard it is, but now I really do understand.
That said I rarely look at a John Lewis catalogue and feel moved to do anything whereas when I look at the work of some of my favourite portrait and documentary photographers, I sometimes find myself moved so much I have tears in my eyes.
What about this one?
I love that picture - it was on the short list of the Taylor Wessing wasn't it?
And yes she has a bag on her head; it's after Van Eyck
geetee1972 - MemberThat said I rarely look at a John Lewis catalogue and feel moved to do anything
[img] http://johnlewis.scene7.com/is/image/JohnLewis/233300351?$prod_lrg$ [/img]
I don't believe you. Just look at the composition, the balance, the lighting.....! Breathtaking!
Makes me want to put some Queen on & do the [s]hoovering[/s] Dysoning....!!
😀 😉
No. I'm a studio photographer, unless your wedding pics are going in Hello or Harpers they have no value beyond whatever the family and friends attribute to them.
The images I produce in the studio help people sell stuff to make money, that's why I'm paid more than a wedding photographer, that and the fact an amateur will struggle to get close to what I produce.
At last someone in the business that understands. This is exactly it, those pictures have a value to the customer. They help them sell a product. Some pictures however, no matter how technically brilliant they are, just don't have any value to the customer.
Its like saying my Dad doesn't understand the value of the latest Metalica album. They have spent years learning to play that well have spent loads of money on studio time and equipment. So he must be a fool for not realising that and buying it. Its of no value to him !!!
I don't believe you. Just look at the composition, the balance, the lighting.....! Breathtaking!
Makes me want to put some Queen on & do the hoovering Dysoning....!!
Thats not a photograph, but you knew that , right?
trailwaggerThats not a photograph,
So?
So?
So it's easy to make that image look like it does. Whereas if you were to try and create a photograph of that product, that looks just like that, it would be extremely hard.
geetee1972 - MemberSo it's easy to make that image look like it does.
Please, explain the process to me as you understand it.
I love that picture - it was on the short list of the Taylor Wessing wasn't it?
Yes - now you mention it, I think it was. I also saw it in a collection with others in the same series so you see it as part of a series of pictures of one person (his daughter).
The light and colour in all his pictures are amazing.
Putting on my 'pseud's corner' hat, what it communicates, for me, is something about a mutual trust (you want me to wear a bag? won't I look stupid?) and affection; that the girl is vulnerable but protected.
@JimJam
1 - Put model* in to whitebox environment in raytracing package
2 - Apply materials [only if not imoprted with model, which is unlikely]
3 - Position/mess with the lighting in the scene
4 - Press render.
5 - Do something else while it renders, preferably STW.
1-4 Should take you a couple of hours, tops. *Assuming the solid model is already made as the thing is probably scheduled/in production when you are going to make an advertising render like that.
As you can see the motor and impeller in a cut away, I am guessing that Dyson picture is rendered straight from CAD.
Please, explain the process to me as you understand it.
OK I guess 'easy' was the wrong word. It takes a lot of skill to make a computer rendering of that quality. It's a different set of challenges though.
Lighting a product to look like it does in that image (if that were a real thing rather than computer generated), is very difficult and requires a whole other skill set.
I'm not convinced Hendrik Kerstens gives away free session vouchers.
Just sounds like a shitty gift voucher that does no favours to pretty much everyone involved in the transaction - the giver, who doesn't think that £50 essentially gives the family the chance to sit in the same room as the photographer for an hour, the receiver, who also doesn't realise this, and the photographer, who knows that he's relying on the hard sell to a surprised punter to make any money at all.
The only winner is the firm that sells the voucher, who get fifty quid for pretty much sod all.
In a nutshell.
trailwagger - MemberThats not a photograph, but you knew that , right?
If you're telling me what I think you're telling me......does this mean that the Dyson I've just bought doesn't come with genuine X-sectional motor functionality....
GODDAMN IT!!!
Yeah. Easy to get that effect in a computer though. Just pressing buttons isn't it....?
Just pressing buttons isn't it....?
That's what people say about my wife's job (she's an airline pilot).
I am no way belittling the work of professionals or bemoaning the cost involved in getting professional photos done. But, I am saying that just because you employ a 'professional' it doesn't mean you are assured of a good result....
The same is true of any profession though, isn't it. I work with a bunch of 'engineers,' some of them know more than I could ever hope to learn, some of them I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoelaces without supervision. Or for a more commonplace example, GPs. They're all "professionals" but there's a gulf of experience and ability between some of them.
Surely straightforward rather than easy.
Anyway what were these photos that the photographer felt s/he had the ability to blackmail?
"Anyway what were these photos that the photographer felt s/he had the ability to blackmail?"
White background, people in front of it.
Pfft! That'll never catch on
Cougar - ModeratorThe same is true of any profession though, isn't it.
It's almost like someone said the same thing about 4hrs ago!
I would quote it, but the forum is running so badly on my computer that I have given up and swapped to my phone...(see website lagging thread for more details)
Mark my words, in the future camera technology will develop to the point where photographs can be taken of people outside, doing stuff they enjoy. That day cannot be far off.
"It was £800 around a decade ago.....and it wasn't the entire day. It was the ceremony & shots afterwards up to the point that everyone went to the reception - so all in all about 3-4hrs absolute max shooting time.How long to upload, edit and select images??!! A day or two!! WHAT!? As I said previously, surely someone who does this for a living should have the camera & settings dialled in such that the amount of editing is kept to a bare minimum & is done in a batch manner as much as possible based on conditions on the day. I doubt he went through every image & gave it the full 'processing' treatment. The customer shouldn't have to pay for the professional's inefficient methods...."
All this has already been explained. If you can't be bothered to read and try to understand, there's little point in trying to explain it all again.
"Anyway - regardless - you seem to be missing the point that this bloke was supposedly a professional photographer yet even with all this 'time' he spent on the shoot, all the post-processing, the cost of equipment, the overheads, the insurance blah blah.......he managed to do a less satisfactory job than I managed to do with my new to me D80 & a kit lens.....with no formal training, no overheads, very little post processing & £35 worth of Photobox Photobook....."
Woud be nice to hear his side of things, and see the respective photos, to make an objective judgment...
"The point I was making was that 'professional' doesn't mean the output won't be mediocre, which is I thought geetee was alluding to.....(and he has since replied to)....."
No-one's arguing against this. 😕
"Would be nice to hear his side of things, and see the respective photos, to make an objective judgment..."
An objective judgement of something subjective....
Remind me, from an objective standpoint, what is the best piece of music ever?
Remind me, from an objective standpoint, what is the best piece of music ever?
[url=
this I think.[/url]
clodhopper - Member...and see the respective photos, to make an objective judgment...
An objective judgment of the pics is irrelevant.
He was being paid to shoot pics for my mates wedding. I was not being paid & was there in an amateur/hobby/bloke with camera capacity.
My mate & his wife didn't like the pics that the professional (he'd paid to take pics) had taken as much as the ones that I had. End of. You can cast your objective eye over the pics as much of you want, but the fact is that the photo's I took reflect their wedding TO THEM more clearly than the ones that the 'professional' took.
So, you looking critically at composition, lighting, balance, rule of thirds, Fibonacci sequences, mystic runes or any other arty stuff is absolutely & totally irrelevant.
To be honest I thought my photos were OK, but could pic holes in them left, right & centre if I wanted to. But again, that is irrelevant. They prefer them, & that is what matters.....
C'mon STW - stay cheerful, don't let me down 🙂
My mate & his wife didn't like the pics that the professional (he'd paid to take pics) had taken as much as the ones that I had. End of. You can cast your objective eye over the pics as much of you want, but the fact is that the photo's I took reflect their wedding TO THEM more clearly than the ones that the 'professional' took.
Or he was just being a good mate. 😉
Ashley COle sent me a photograph. I didn't like it one little bit.
EDIT - maybe not
We come back to where this thread diverted away from discussing the business model. Maybe stumpy's mate prefers his pics because they have more of a sense of being there rather than just the standard formal wedding photos. Of course a good wedding photographer might get some of that as well, and stumpy was doubtless piggybacking on the paid photographer setting up shots. But the point is that most ordinary people are more interested in the content than the technical excellence. I think some are also missing the point of the dad photo - it's not just that it's his dad, it's his dad somewhere with good memories - better than a posed photo just for the sake of a photo however technically excellent.
The point being that the amateur in the right place can get photos the pro never will, which might be more valuable to the "customer" than a posed studio shoot ever will be. If they can also do technical stuff well then so much the better. The days of needing a pro to get a quality photo are long gone - who cares if the pro would have done a better job, they weren't there.
...many years ago I remember going to a wedding where everyone got given a disposable camera for those spirit of the event shots. Don't think I've been to one since camera phones became ubiquitous - I presume nowadays lots of people take pics at weddings anyway and share them?
people are more interested in the content than the technical excellence.
Sorry but they are the same thing. Getting good content is what you pay a pro-photographer for, whether it's for a studio or a wedding shoot.
Last wingding I went to had disposable cameras - 'twas fun 🙂
captainsasquatch - Member
Surely straightforward rather than easy.
Most things are straightforward when you know how.
Judging by the amount of crap photos I see posted on social media, everyone has the technology yet very few have the ability to take consistently good photos.
...many years ago I remember going to a wedding where everyone got given a disposable camera for those spirit of the event shots. Don't think I've been to one since camera phones became ubiquitous - I presume nowadays lots of people take pics at weddings anyway and share them?
We looked at this when we got wed last year and decided that the cost of film cameras + processing (even just a couple on each table) was way too expensive given that everyone would probably take mobile shots. In the end we didn't get many phone shots back, kinda wish we'd done it in hindsight.
Last two weddings I've been to the bride and groom have provided selfie sticks rather than disposable cameras.
I'm not sure how many decent pics they got from the guests though.
That's a shame - I guess with the disposables people are encouraged to have fun with them.
Sorry but they are the same thing
I really don't think they are, because as I explained, no matter how much you pay, the pro simply won't be there to take some shots. Wedding photos maybe isn't the best example, but even there the pro will be busy with the formal official shots, and even the best will miss some of the more informal stuff going on while that's happening. I suppose if I ever got married, had enough money and cared I might employ 2 wedding photographers.
"doubtless piggybacking on the paid photographer setting up shots."
Yeah, were digressing somewhat but this is exactly happened at our wedding.
The Photographer(s) set up shots, meanwhile 10/12 people would gather behind them and get the same shots from a slightly different angle/settings/time. A few people had better lenses and bodies too. All the photos came back to us and many of the Guests got (by luck) better shots than the pros, even Grannies with Compacts hit the button at a lucky moment and captured the perfect smiles, whatever.
Good for us but the Photographers didn't like it much. It was quite clear to everyone that 99pc of the work going into the shots was done by the pros before anyone touched a shutter so I don't know why it bothered them, it didn't harm their rep and I know they got two more wedding gigs from the day.
I'm surprised the Wedding Photography business has gone south. I'd have thought Commercial and Weddings would be two lines of revenue that would never dry up.
Bit of a digression from portrait business models though.
EDIT: Just remembered one of our evening guests was a proper paparazzi - you see him all time time on the red carpet at Oscars etc. I distinctly remember he had a compact with him. Like most guests, gave us his shots. Given this thread I'll dig them out and see what I think.
Good for us but the Photographers didn't like it much. It was quite clear to everyone that 99pc of the work going into the shots was done by the pros before anyone touched a shutter so I don't know why it bothered them, it didn't harm their rep and I know they got two more wedding gigs from the day.
A confident pro shouldn't be worried, but even Graham Watson would have a strop if you dared to criticise one of his photos or question his ability. 😆
He's a sensitive flower then?
I suppose if I ever got married, had enough money and cared I might employ 2 wedding photographers.
That's precisely what the good wedding photographers do.
This is such a pointless argument I really don't know why I'm bothering but here goes.
This is a bit like trying to argue why everyone should be watching a BBC2 drama or documentary rather than a Channel 4 reality show. We all know that the BBC2 programming is more high brow and stimulating but loads of people still like watching the drivel that is reality TV.
It's the same with people's exepctations for photography today. Most people are perfectly happy to have shit and that's fine. It doesn't make them bad people it just makes them people.
I will look at 90% of what most people offer as an acceptable photograph and think very differently. Consequently, when I got married (back in 2007) and we both looked at the rising number of 'man with a camera wannabe wedding photographers' and just shook our heads. I insisted on selecting a very good local photographer and insisted she shot with a medium format film camera (which I now own as it happens!)
If you don't care don't buy but don't expect anyone who does care not to regard you decision with slight disdain and sadness that you're appreciation of talent isn't more nuanced.
"A confident pro shouldn't be worried,"
It was good natured and their skill was beyond question but I think there was a little lense insecurity. 🙂
It wasn't the expensive kit that should have worried them though - it was the amazing quality of output from cheap Android phones with fixed 2mm apertures.
If you don't care don't buy but don't expect anyone who does care not to regard you decision with slight disdain
Yeah I got that when you equated my preference for substance over style with reality TV 😉
"This is a bit like trying to argue why everyone should be watching a BBC2 drama or documentary rather than a Channel 4 reality show. We all know that the BBC2 programming is more high brow and stimulating but loads of people still like watching the drivel that is reality TV."
I agree it's a pointless debate and totally irrelevant to the topic but why is a photo of me outside grinning because I'm doing something I love less high brow than me inside in front of a white background doing something staged & self consciously 'whacky'?
It's not art if they haven't spent time arranging you, oob
"Yeah I got that when you equated my preference for substance over style with reality TV"
That's how it read to me.
"It's not art if they haven't spent time arranging you, oob"
If it was art they should have let me take my pants off!
I agree it's a pointless debate and totally irrelevant to the topic but why is a photo of me outside grinning because I'm doing something I love less high brow than me inside in front of a white background doing something staged & self consciously 'whacky'?
I don't understand this, sorry.
Yeah I got that when you equated my preference for substance over style with reality TV
I should apologise; this was a poor analogy and I really have nothing against, what I do lovingly call, 'snaps', i.e. the kind of casual photo's of things, of life, of the everyday but also the important. These kinds of casual snaps are really valuable and we should preserve them.
My point is to know the difference and recognise the things that are valuable and important. My problem, such as I have one, is people that people only seem to put value on the snaps, not on anything else.
My problem, such as I have one, is people that people only seem to put value on the snaps, not on anything else.
Ah well, if that is still aimed at me then you have me wrong. I do also value the art, but to come back to the OP I'm not sure the sort of standardised high street studio shoots are anything more than reality TV.
Actually I've been thinking about what you'd do with that whacky family shot earlier. Would you hang it on the wall of that room, and if so, wouldn't it be improved by photoshopping the pic into the background?
This is a good read on the costs of taking photos:
Fuxake. I'm one of the few here who follows posts from start to finish.
Point #1 I'm confident in my abilities as a photographer with a few specialist abilities, and recognise those fields where I am better off passing jobs to other pros.
Point #2 Almost nobody does "people in front of a white backdrop" anymore - that went out with Venture.
Point #3 Yes, you can have Photoshop and Lightroom and Silverephex and a D5 and still be a shite photographer
Point #4 There are good professionals with integrity, learning and experience behind them and there are shysters making a fat buck just as there are in any profession.
If a business model works, it works. You Don't have to ****ing like it and you don't have to partake.
I'll accept criticism in form of comparison to event photographs taken of you doing a running/cycling event.
footflaps - Member
They didn't really capture any atmosphere.
That is slightly OT from what I had in mind, i was more thinking of what is the favourite event photo taken of yourself and why do you like it, it it because it captures the spirit of the event, brings back memories of a good performance, or makes you look awesome, etc.
Some good examples and food for thought though - maybe I shouldnt be so focussed in isolating the athelete. Thanks for sharing and commenting.
You might prefer this one which I also took on my 2nd outing.
[img] 
[/img]
"Point #2 Almost nobody does "people in front of a white backdrop" anymore - that went out with Venture."
At least my shots will be unique!
"If a business model works, it works. You Don't have to **** like it and you don't have to partake."
If you receive it as a gift, or if you're a bit naive and don't ask questions upfront, then you might well be partaking without really wanting to. Not that it matters, if I hadn't partaken I'd still think it was sh1t.
Ah well, if that is still aimed at me then you have me wrong
No I promise you it wasn't.
if I hadn't partaken I'd still think it was sh1t
I was taught that getting baked at a wedding was rude!
PS you're allowed to write "shit" on here.
Sorry for the potty mouth word, no excuse in text when I actually had time to think.
So; yesterday, my wife asks me to take a picture of her, for a book she's collaborated on. Just the standard simple portrait for the sleeve notes. 'Doesn't need to be amazing, it'll only be printed small'. So I grab the camera and 85mm lens, do a few snaps by the window. Perfectly adequate.
Today, she gets emails from all the other contributors, saying what a 'fantastic' and 'gorgeous' photo it is, and how their own pictures are 'terrible' (mostly snapped on 'phones by the looks of things), and how they really need to get 'proper' pictures done by a 'professional' (IE, me!). Quite amusing, because I really didn't put too much time and effort into them; camera and lens are as good as you can get, the light from the window was perfect, and my wife is particularly photogenic. I suppose having the experience of doing some portraiture helped a bit.
Outofbreath etc; how much do you think I should charge per portrait photo for the other contributors?
It's not really a fair comparison is it?
You have the experience AND the kit.
Do you also do portraits with an iPhone and no processing? How much less do you charge for those?
"It's not really a fair comparison is it?
I'm not actually comparing myself to the other 'photographers'. You're missing the point...
<edit>
you're missing the point
Seems likely.
Are you saying the difference was the kit? I think you might have added the "quotes" after.
If you mean what I mean then i think we're largely in agreement. Or something 🙂
Outofbreath etc; how much do you think I should charge per portrait photo for the other contributors?
£1200
Nice job if you can get it 😀
clodhopper - MemberI'm not actually comparing myself to the other 'photographers'. You're missing the point...
Just send them a free portrait session voucher. And then charge the for the pics.
That way we've gone full circle...!
The people you took photos of can moan they're being ripped off and you can moan about people not understanding the art or the costs involved in being a professional and we've got another 10 pages of discussion....
So I had a really interesting experience this week. We need photo's for our company website and my employer asked if I would take them. The owner of the company is also into photography in a significant way and specialises in studio lighting subjects; quite different to my style.
He has a very capable and expensive studio light set that I was able to work with. I've never used anything like this before and it was a fascinating experience that told me just how hard it is to get the lighting right. We were working in a very small space so the lights were very close to the subject so small movements in their placement relative to the lights were making a very big difference in the amount of light falling on them. Fascinating experience though the results aren't really up to par for use in a corporate website.
This is the best example.
[img] 
[/img]
Personally; I think the lighting is coming from the sides too much, and I'd like to see flatter, more even lighting on the centre of the subject's face. Or perhaps the background is overlit, and you've got light spilling from that.
Buy you know yourself, just how difficult it is to get portrait lighting right. Static subjects are much easier than people!
"£1200"
Per photo??! 😆
Mind you, I do fancy a new D5...
they really need to get 'proper' pictures done by a 'professional' (IE, me!).
So you're going to get the buyer to contact Groupon to buy a Voucher. Groupon pocket 100pc of the voucher price. Then you'll do the shoot for free and charge the customer an unspecified price per photo.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to agree a price direct with the customer?
I didn't ask for what 'business model' I should use; I asked how much I should charge per portrait photo.
Genuine question. Very interested in seeing what people think such work is 'worth'.
"Wouldn't it be simpler just to agree a price direct with the customer?"
So how do I do that? How much do I charge?
I didn't ask for what 'business model' I should use
The thread is about the business model, not the price.
But just to confirm, you *ARE* using a session voucher mechanism to charge for this work, aren't you? If not why not.
But my question is about the price. You've been outspoken about the amount you were being 'blackmailed' for, so come on; answer my question. How much should I charge?
I strongly suspect you aren't using the voucher model, you're just to shy to admit it.
Kit - I think that portrait is too dark and there's not enough light on the subjects face. Great pose and character, but unfortunately not fit for purpose (as you said yourself).