comments on photography
Amy Szczepanski
I have taken the liberty of quoting from several posts photographers
have made, most with sender of "SPECTRUM" or "Fotoman." As I couldn't
tell who was quoting whom, I am not tring to identify original authors.
Quoted material indicated by lines beginning in }.
}A great example of the quality vs. $$$ issue. I wish a few of the girls
}in alt.wedding would check this stuff out.
The girls? What about the women? And the men? Your diction does not
indicate that you are taking readers of this newsgroup seriously.
}Take a look at the attached photo. Both photos were taken within a few
}months of each other. Both photos were stored in the same cheap $2.00
}photo album.
[Snip, author explains that these are 20yr old photos of his niece.]
[He notes that the image captured with pro materials still looks good.]
}The day my niece left for college, my sister pulled out her old cheap
}photo album full of dept. store photos. When she discovered they were
}full of these nasty discolored photos, she just sat and cried. How will
}the photos look in 20 more years???? What if it had been her wedding
}album? Or your wedding album? Would the savings had been worth it?
Another photography post suggested that a cheap-o album would turn even
pro pictures "reddish" in seven years. I have found great success in
storing photos in a cardboard box. The only photo I want from my
wedding is a b&w shot done in the studio; I'm going to keep it in a
frame until it gets really faded, then I'm going to toss it. Then
I'll have the memories in my head, which will have lost all of the
imperfect aspects of reality which are preserved in a photograph.
(For example, in my mind, my eyes are not all squished when I smile.)
I bring this up only to remind some of the photographers that not
everyone relies on photographs as the couriers of memory. Even though
I may find great aesthetic satisfaction from viewing a display of
photographs in a gallery, that does not imply that I would find value
in commisionning a series of images featuring myself and my family during
a very personal and emotion-filled day. And for me, this statement
would hold whether it be my wedding day or the day of my grandmother's
funeral.
Plus, who says that discolored is bad? When the cyan fades out, your
image gets this whole Andy Warhol look to it. :)
On the issue of handing over negatives, it has been written:
}I can say with certain that the photographers that give the negs will not
}be as professional at posing people just right, using 2nd lighting for
}fill, custom filters and the list goes on.
[Snip]
}Does he/she care really if your pictures are the best he/she can do.
}No! but if negs are not offered for sale you absolutely will order them.
}If they are not that great, you probably will not!
One would hope that the photographer would have pride in his or her
work. Once the images leave the studio, they represent the photographer
and are critical to his or her reputation. Might this possibly outweigh
any short-term advantages of doing less than the best?
I would suggest that instead of using "scare tactics" and feeding on
worry and hysteria that some of the photographers take a different
approach. Point of the benefits your services provide without belittling
other options. I'm sure that I'm not the only reader of this NG who
has favorite photos taken years ago on an Instamatic that still look
good to us; I won't believe you when you say all amateur photos are
unattractive and won't keep their colors over the years. Instead of
offering combo-platter packages, offer a la carte choices. Can you
offer someone an image that captures the emotion of the moment without
looking like the cheesy images that some beginning art students produce?
Do you think to capture random details (the bumblebee investigating the
bouquet, whateve)? Can you find a way to depict someone who does not
fit society's model of attractiveness in a way that makes the subject
feel beautiful when looking at the photo? And don't break life down into
"posed shots" and "candids." What do you do when the flower girl is
playing with the light source you just set up (and can you capture that
without the light ruining the shot, even though she's wiggling it all
over...).
Don't point out what limits others; highlight your strengths and don't
look back.
-AmySz
Marten Kemp
Amy Szczepanski wrote:
>
> I have taken the liberty of quoting from several posts photographers
> have made, most with sender of "SPECTRUM" or "Fotoman." As I couldn't
> tell who was quoting whom, I am not tring to identify original authors.
> Quoted material indicated by lines beginning in }.
>
> }A great example of the quality vs. $$$ issue. I wish a few of the girls
> }in alt.wedding would check this stuff out.
>
> The girls? What about the women? And the men? Your diction does not
> indicate that you are taking readers of this newsgroup seriously.
not to take *you* very seriously.
<<major snippage>>
> And don't break life down into
> "posed shots" and "candids." What do you do when the flower girl is
> playing with the light source you just set up (and can you capture that
> without the light ruining the shot, even though she's wiggling it all
> over...).
Amy, keep the kids AWAY from my equipment. My wife is the photographer
and I go along to assist and haul the equipment. If the flower girl is
playing with the light source I'm going to remove one from the other
(whichever is easier, probably the flower girl because she isn't plugged
into the wall).
The equipment is expensive, fragile and, to a flower girl, dangerous.
The flower girl's parent(s) need to have her under better control. The
bride is liable for deliberate damage to our equipment. The bride at
the wedding where the ring bearer deliberately kicked one of our $1500
lenses onto a marble floor was charged for the repair costs. The bride
who accidently knocked a camera, lens and tripod into a lake wasn't.
(The lake was shallow and nothing was lost. We kept the film wet until
it was developed and the pictures were fine).
Sorry, this pushed one of my hot buttons.
>
> Don't point out what limits others; highlight your strengths and don't
> look back.
>
> -AmySz
If someone values photography, let her or him contract for photography
to the extent that it is valued. If you don't value photography, don't
disparage those who do.
Just my 2 dinars' worth.
--Marten Kemp, after 25 years and about 3000 weddings
Amy Szczepanski
Ok... to clarify before the curtains catch on fire...
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Marten Kemp wrote:
[Mr. Kemp makes fine points about the safety of an unsupervised child
near a hot lamp, in reference to a comment of mine (me=AmySz)]
Yes, my hypothetical example was a poor one. I had hoped to construct
an episode where an unexpected opportunity came up during an otherwise
very structured part of wedding photography. Everyone is charged to
come up with his or her own, better, example to illustrate my point. :)
Mr. Kemp writes:
>
> If someone values photography, let her or him contract for photography
> to the extent that it is valued. If you don't value photography, don't
> disparage those who do.
>
I was not commenting negatively in any way about the art of photography,
nor was I passing judgement on its value. I do take notice at some of
the "scare tactics" that some of its proponents have used. Perhaps this
is because I find some of the details of their examples somewhat
inconsistent (specifically, about albums and photo discoloration).
The inconsistencies would bother me less if the posts did not take
the format "Bad result X will happen if you do Y, and then you will
cry and live unhappily ever after."
To reiterate and clarify from my original post, I believe that many
photographers create quality art at weddings. I find it disturbing
that some people claim that high quality photographs are an essential
part of all successful weddings, and I dislike some of the rhetorical
techniques they use to argue that point.
-AmySz
SPECTRUM
>I have taken the liberty of quoting from several posts photographers
>have made, most with sender of "SPECTRUM" or "Fotoman." As I couldn't
>tell who was quoting whom, I am not tring to identify original authors.
>Quoted material indicated by lines beginning in }.
>
>}A great example of the quality vs. $$$ issue. I wish a few of the girls
>}in alt.wedding would check this stuff out.
>
>The girls? What about the women? And the men? Your diction does not
>indicate that you are taking readers of this newsgroup seriously.
>
>feel beautiful when looking at the photo? And don't break life down into
>"posed shots" and "candids." What do you do when the flower girl is
>playing with the light source you just set up (and can you capture that
>without the light ruining the shot, even though she's wiggling it all
>over...).
>
>Don't point out what limits others; highlight your strengths and don't
>look back.
>
>-AmySz
>
Well, here goes ! (Ronald Regan, C.'82 )
I apologize for the slight error of calling you all girls. Of
course you are women who are mature enough to be making the most
important decisions of your life. I guess it's the man in me !
> I have found great success in
>storing photos in a cardboard box.
I highly recommend against this practice as the cardboard is
absolutely full of glues.
>The only photo I want from my
>wedding is a b&w shot done in the studio; I'm going to keep it in a
>frame until it gets really faded, then I'm going to toss it.
An admirable approach. But you'll be waiting at least 100
years for a properly processed B&W to fade. Possibly much longer. Some
have given life expectancies for B&W materials processed to archival
standards life expectancies of up to 700 years.Of course that's unless
you smoke. Cigarette smoke is full of cyanide which is pretty toxic to
photo's.And it doesn't do a thing for people either.
>I bring this up only to remind some of the photographers that not
>everyone relies on photographs as the couriers of memory.
Some of us don't have the best memory. While I'm good at
remembering some personal details in great detail there are others
that escape me.
Another good reason for professional photo's is the
unfortunate occasion of losing family members. Most of my brides are
in their early twenties and have grandparents in their 60's or even up
to 90's. Unfortunately we can't all live forever and on more than one
occasion I've been contacted by a grieving family member to learn that
they would like a copy of one of my photographs that I took of the now
deceased at the wedding. It's not a cheery subject but those people
are sure glad they had a professional that day of the wedding.
>One would hope that the photographer would have pride in his or her
>work. Once the images leave the studio, they represent the photographer
>and are critical to his or her reputation. Might this possibly outweigh
>any short-term advantages of doing less than the best?
Very well put. I think I kind of started this subject about
the actual selling of negatives and I certainly would never give any
bride less than my best efforts unless she was completely
uncooperative or the situation was out of control.Could you give a
little more of an opinion on that issue as I haven't exactly seen a
lot posted from the brides as a whole. That was why I posted it here
in the first place.
About the little girl and my strobes, I'M DIVING TO GET HER
AWAY FROM IT ! Our strobes use some 10,000-20,000 volts and the
amperage is enough to kill a horse. I don't think little girls out to
be playing with them.
And in fact I try not to use strobes unless absolutely
necessary around infants as their retinas aren't fully developed until
about 18-24 months.So for all of you ladies having children someday,
don't let the hospital photographer flash your newborns eyes. It's not
a good way to start a life.
Regards,
John & Karen Douglas
Spectrum photographic Inc.
http://www.spectrumphoto.com SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com
<<<<<<< Married October 29th,1997 ! >>>>>>>
SPECTRUM
Amy,
I have to agree with you on one point, there are a few
photographers who use the scare tactics( I call them the "Tactics of
Mistake" from a book by Gordon R.Dickson) unnecessarily. There are
legitimate concerns but they can be approached with an eye toward
practicality. IOW, you have specific needs and that is all that you
should be sold. If the photographer cannot oblige then another will.
Sound simple ? Life usually is !
Thanks for the post. Reality check are often in order here !
Karen Simmons
Amy Szczepanski wrote:
> I find some of the details of their examples somewhat
> inconsistent (specifically, about albums and photo discoloration).
> The inconsistencies would bother me less if the posts did not take
> the format "Bad result X will happen if you do Y, and then you will
> cry and live unhappily ever after."
Amy,
I agree with you about the scare tactics thing and most photographers I
know, know better than to use them on brides. There's something about
writing on the 'net that makes it harder to ... I don't know ...
maintain a step back for perspective. There's an immediacy and urgency
to print that makes it not come across the same way as if it were
spoken. Hmmm ... I'm not making a lot of sense here. Ok moving on.
The thing about albums and film discoloration is, unfortunately, true.
Cheap albums are not of archival quality. Archival quality in this
instance means using acid free paper and cardboard and plastics that are
made of polypropylene. Cheaper albums are usually made of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), which, after time, breaks down and forms hydrochloric
acid and emits fumes that will damage your pictures. You can tell a
polyvinyl material by it's strong "plastic-y" smell. Take a look at the
inside of your car's windshield some time and see the nearly invisible
film that forms? That's because your dashboard is made of PVC plastics
and is emitting those fumes which become trapped and settle on your
windshield. This is also what happens to your pictures. Acid in paper
and cardboard (called Lignin) is just as damaging in a different way --
they will eat into the backing of your pictures and, over time, cause
them to disentegrate at a touch.
I agree that not everyone sees the discoloring and there are lots of
reasons for that; for example, my Mom kept a whole bunch of pictures in
those magnetic albums for YEARS, but they were also in the bottom of her
cedar chest, which is dry and kept at a fairly constant temperature.
That helps retard the fading and emulsion damage. On the other hand,
when she tried to take a few pictures out to frame them after my
G-mother died, she pulled up a corner and peeled the picture right off
of the backing -- which had stuck fast to the "magnetic" part of the
album. As with anything YMMV, but in more cases than not, cheap albums
are bad for the images.
I guess another way to look at it (kinda grim, but bear with me): a lot
of people smoke. Not all of them get lung cancer. But smoking is still
bad for you. It's kinda the same principle with cheap albums; a lot of
people use them. Not all of them have destroyed pics. But more do than
don't and the odds are against you.
That doesn't mean you have to buy a high-end photographers album and
spend $$$$. There are lots of companies, mail order and otherwise, that
sell archival albums at a lower price than the big "Wedding" album
places. But I feel very strongly that it is worth the extra money to
buy archival wherever you buy it. Why risk your photographs?
Regards,
Karen
------------------------------
Karen Simmons Photography
Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.ks-photography.com
------------------------------
Marcie Pacilli
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980207180032.10149A-100000@euclid>, Amy
Szczepanski <aszc...@math.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Instead of
> offering combo-platter packages, offer a la carte choices. Can you
> offer someone an image that captures the emotion of the moment without
> looking like the cheesy images that some beginning art students produce?
I have tried selling this approach in the past but have been unsuccessful.
It is very acceptable in the world of commercial and editorial photography
to shoot for a fee plus expenses. Moving into the wedding market from
there, that is what I tried selling. Perhaps it was poor selling techniques
on my part... ;-) but... I found that prospective b&gs preferred the
approach,for X$ you will get this. Meanwhile, their eyes kind of glaze over
going over a long a la carte list of what they can get.
I'd love to sell an a la carte approach and would welcome suggestions on
doing so.
Marcie Pacilli
MJ & Company
SPECTRUM
Hi Marcie,
This is kind of where I was going when I suggested that I
might be selling a "proofs&negs-only" package. Then if the B&G want
custom prints, they can bring their negs back to me and I'll gladly
print them thief images.
Unfortunately I haven't gotten much of a response so I guess
I'll have to try it out locally if I want to find out how the people
are going to feel about the possibility.
John Anglin
>>> Instead of
>>> offering combo-platter packages, offer a la carte choices.
>>I have tried selling this approach in the past but have been unsuccessful.
>>... I found that prospective b&gs preferred the
>>approach,for X$ you will get this. Meanwhile, their eyes kind of glaze over
>>going over a long a la carte list of what they can get.
>>
My photographer offered us both, although we used the a la carte
technique. All our proofs were numbered, and we had a price list for
different sizes. The family members found this easy too, because they
could order exactly the photos they wanted without having to wait for
our "leftovers" or commit to a big package. We used the a la carte
ordering because we were on a budget and didn't want a $300 photo
package. Photos were not a huge priority with us, although we did
want some professional shots.
Analda
ana...@hiwaay.net
SPECTRUM
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 04:03:54 GMT, jan...@HiWAAY.net (John Anglin)
wrote:
Hi Analda !
This is exactly what I've been looking for . Could you give us
a few more specifics on how everything was structured and how the
photographer was paid for his/her time ? I don't mean to pry, but I'm
quite interested in this subject as i've recently become aware of how
many brides and grooms can't afford , or at least feel they can't
afford professional photography for their wedding.
Thanks for your time.
Phares
The statement that she didn't want a $300 photo package should tell
it all. This would mean that whatever package was decided on was
somewhat less than this. Take out film and processing costs and
you can imagine how profitible his business must be.
K. Zaruba
You write, in response to someone who didn't like the use of the term
"girls" in reference to brides....
>
> -----Lighten up. Taking exception on a point like this encourages *me*
> not to take *you* very seriously.
Yo bub,
I am not one who cares whether I am called a chick, a skirt, a bimbo, a
babe, a tomato, or a GIRL instead of a woman.
But for some people, this is quite an issue. It is a major irritant to
them, and frankly there might be some truth to the belief that diminutive
terminology such as "little bride" or "girl" does in fact indicate a lack
of respect. YOU might not think it is no big deal, but don't be so quick
to dismiss others' offense.
I am sure at one time there were those who thought men of color were
silly to be annoyed with the ubiquitous term "boy." The point is, just
because you have a different perspective, thinking the term is no big
deal, does not invalidate the perspective of someone who takes offense.
If you refuse to take anyone seriously who has a strong preference for
"woman" instead of "girl," you are probably being dimissing of a great
number of people.
-- KZ
*
* I have a wedding page with a collection of ideas for small weddings,
* theme weddings, and destination weddings :
*
* http://www.umich.edu/~kzaruba/wedding.html
*
Sandi Rollins
In article <marcie-ya0235800...@news.earthlink.net>,
Marcie Pacilli <mar...@mjcompany.com> wrote:
>I have tried selling this approach in the past but have been unsuccessful.
>to shoot for a fee plus expenses. Moving into the wedding market from
>there, that is what I tried selling. Perhaps it was poor selling techniques
>approach,for X$ you will get this. Meanwhile, their eyes kind of glaze over
>going over a long a la carte list of what they can get.
>
>doing so.
Marcie:
Our photographer offers only an ala carte package. His strategy:
$600 fee for his time (also includes his wife as assistant), and
$1000 minimum order in prints.
In this way, he makes a reasonable amount, even if no other reprints
are forthcoming.
He offers a price sheet with his contract that details cost per print,
album cost, insert costs, folios, panoramic prints, etc.
His wife takes the proofs and 'designs' the album before release to
the client. (Of course, the designed album has more than the
number of shots already pre-paid). And then they offer a *discount*
on the prepared album from the alacarte pricing (since the labor in
the layout is complete, I guess). In this way, you could offer a
"standard" package for viewing.
So, our 'designed' album included 171 prints. If we had ordered
it as designed, the ala carte pricing would have been close to $3700.
They offered to include several portraits for free, upgrade the album
and inserts, and give us a "free" additional panoramic print. This
discount brought the price down to $2800. We passed. :^)
Our prepaid $1000 of prints was pretty much what we were willing to
spend. But since that money was now "water under the bridge", and
we really liked many of the photos, we did indulge, and ordered about
$200 more when placing our album order. So we ended up with 51 prints,
including 7 8x8's and 8x10's, and 1 panoramic (12x24"), an ArtLeather
album, and mats. We're happy with our results.
Anyway, our album order did not include our orders as gifts for
the parents and grandparents, or attendants. Our families also ordered
a fair amount of photos (I think pro photographers must *love* divorced
families!). In total, our families and us ended up with about $2300
worth of prints ordered from them, plus the initial $600 shooting fee.
The ala carte pricing certainly helped them get it, because we
had *no interest* in booking those photogs who had no flexibility in
their packages. (What were we going to do with "2 parents' albums",
when we had 4 sets? *Why* would we want an 11x14" portrait? An
announcement in the paper? No thanks....) You get the point.
Anyway, that's how it worked for us. Hope it helps.
Sandi
skylar
John,
Don't mean to but in, but i'd like to tell you about the
photographer i found for my wedding. The fee is $550 for him to come to
the church, and the reception. He doesn't charge per roll or limit the
amount of shots. He doesn't charge travel time, or mileage. For the
pictures, i decide what package i want, or i can make one up of my
own. And that is included in the $550, up to $400. ( if i want a $600
package, i owe him $200). And i get to keep the negatives.
I understand the idea behind the photog keeping the negatives,
but for me, i am not comfortable with that. What happens 10 years down
the road when he's gone bankrupt and/or moved?
I also understand the controversy over 'quality' or 'quantity'.
Yes, it would be nice to be able to get those high priced prints, but
in this day and age, the cheaper on is the one that gets the job.
Especially when you've seen work that he has done for friends and it is
fantastic.
skylar.
SPECTRUM wrote:
> Hi Analda !
>
> This is exactly what I've been looking for . Could you give us
> a few more specifics on how everything was structured and how the
> photographer was paid for his/her time ? I don't mean to pry, but I'm
> quite interested in this subject as i've recently become aware of how
> many brides and grooms can't afford , or at least feel they can't
> afford professional photography for their wedding.
> Thanks for your time.
>
Nathan Shafer
skylar wrote:
>
> Yes, it would be nice to be able to get those high priced prints, but
> in this day and age, the cheaper on is the one that gets the job.
First of all, congratulations on finding a photographer who makes you
so happy!
Second, the above statement is not always true. For example: what
sort of car do you drive? Unless it's an old Yugo, you probably don't
drive the cheapest car you might find. You drive the one that is
minimally acceptable to you in terms of quality, at the best price
you could find. The same holds true for photography. And for some
people, a Ferrari is the minimally acceptable option, for others
it's a Lexus, for still others it's a Hyundai.
> Especially when you've seen work that he has done for friends and it
> is fantastic.
Just out of curiosity, did you see any work that he has done for other
paying clients, or are you his first?
Nathan Shafer, Alpenglow Photography
http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
Photographic Artistry Nationwide: Weddings, Portraits, Nature & Wildlife
SPECTRUM
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:17:37 -0700, skylar <glr...@telusplanet.net>
wrote:
>John,
> Don't mean to but in, but i'd like to tell you about the
>photographer i found for my wedding. The fee is $550 for him to come to
>the church, and the reception. He doesn't charge per roll or limit the
>amount of shots. He doesn't charge travel time, or mileage. For the
>pictures, i decide what package i want, or i can make one up of my
>own. And that is included in the $550, up to $400. ( if i want a $600
>package, i owe him $200). And i get to keep the negatives.
> I understand the idea behind the photog keeping the negatives,
>but for me, i am not comfortable with that. What happens 10 years down
>the road when he's gone bankrupt and/or moved?
> I also understand the controversy over 'quality' or 'quantity'.
> Yes, it would be nice to be able to get those high priced prints, but
>in this day and age, the cheaper on is the one that gets the job.
>Especially when you've seen work that he has done for friends and it is
>fantastic.
>
>skylar.
>
>SPECTRUM wrote:
>
>> Hi Analda !
>>
>> This is exactly what I've been looking for . Could you give us
>> a few more specifics on how everything was structured and how the
>> photographer was paid for his/her time ? I don't mean to pry, but I'm
>> quite interested in this subject as i've recently become aware of how
>> many brides and grooms can't afford , or at least feel they can't
>> afford professional photography for their wedding.
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John & Karen Douglas
>> Spectrum photographic Inc.
>> http://www.spectrumphoto.com SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com
>> <<<<<<< Married October 29th,1997 ! >>>>>>>
Hi Skylar,
Butt in all you want ! It's a free world the last I checked.
While I don't mind selling the negs , especially if it gets me
out of the DR, but I do have to make a specific amount per day to
afford the studio as well as pay for my insurances and equipment
depreciation and my undeserved salary . In order to break even I need
to make at least $4000 (gross profit) per month and the large part of
that is coming from bridal photography. On average I shoot about 3.5
weddings per month . That includes the slow period like right now as
well as June and September when I'm pressed to the max.
What I had in mind is to simply offer "creative services" for
a flat rate of around $600 which doesn't include anything other than
the film and my services. Keep in mind that "my services" includes a
lot. I usually meet with the B&G 3-4 times before the wedding and of
course the day of the wedding and then when they pick up their
proofs.I would have no limits on time and allow quite a supply of film
for the event. No OT, travel fees (within the state)and I would bring
all of my "usual" equipment .
I would go the route of many amateurs except that I have rent
to pay. Not to mention about $12,000 worth of equipment that has to be
maintained and eventually replaced. And unlike many amateurs, i do
think my time is worth something.
Unfortunately this is starting to look a lot less viable than
it did before !
Regards,
John S. Douglas
BlkHatWhtDog
Marcie Pacilli wrote:
>
> I have tried selling this approach in the past but have been unsuccessful.
> I found that prospective b&gs preferred the
> approach,for X$ you will get this. Meanwhile, their eyes kind of glaze over
> going over a long a la carte list of what they can get.
I use the ala carte system and enjoy it, though it has its problems.
First, teh average client out there gets a wedding photographer because, well,
it's one of those things you gotta do, it's on the list of things, see, right
there. And then, what do you ask, How Much Are Your Packages!
There are two approaches, A: give them three widely ranging examples, (aka
packages.) a mini wedding where I show up for the formals and family groups,
and will also cover the ceremony. to a full scale wedding with pre, post and
reception coverage, etc. There are major jumps in coverage here, the actual
spenditure depends on what they want, when they see what pictures they actually
have. The point is not to nail them down on details that they, nor you have
any possible idea
I then go into why ala carte is a great idea, I don't have a pre sold package
of pictures etc, so I can't just cruise through the wedding on auto pilot, I
must bust my butt to make some nice images, cause you will only choose the
images you really want, (which is actually true, though sentiment and artistic
impact is on my side.)
remember, they have to choose You as the photographer, not your price of x
number of pictures. (In polling my rejections, if find two reasons that
clients are willing to tell me, A: my prices, budget expectations are beyond
them, or b: they went with a bigger, more expensive, and, occasionally, a
better photographer.) Money is not the most important factor. It is merely a
rational point of reference.
Packages do have there advantages. Would you rather buy your computer as a
list of parts, or did you buy an assembled package? Lets see, which
motherboard, graphics card, hard drive, etc.
I went to one place that had cpu's listed in every possible availible speed,
and then basic system, complete system, bigger this and that, it was a
confusing grid of numbers.
I bought my computer from a place that listed three, the biggest, fastest,
latest stuff for a gadzooks amount of money, a meduim priced fast enough and
big enough this and that, and a cheap basic, sorta slow, etc. Naturally
enough, I went to the medium speed, but added a little more ram, a bigger
drive, etc. I realized that I could have bought that at the other place, if I
flet comfortable enought to choose exactly what I wanted.
Wedding photography is like that. How many pictures, what sizes, etc. And
they have to choose the exact package six months in advance. I've seen a price
list that had increments of 3 8x10's and 6 or 8 4x5's that started at 6 and
went on and on. The bride was expected to choose exactly how many pictures
well in advance.
I ask if they want this much coverage, and the average sales are from this to
that, full coverage which tends to go from here to there, or really intensive
coverage with lots more etc. This is just to get a feel for what they need.
I've had a few mini weddings spend more than a full day coverage, but i enjoy
the picture taking, and I let the client decide which images they want.