[Closed] Professional Portrait Photography = Blackmail

"Have a read of the thread, it's been clearly spelled out."

It hasn't, actually. All we've gleaned from it, is that you don't want to pay what the photographer is charging. Fine, you don't have to. Claiming it's 'blackmail', or a 'flawed business model', or anything else, is just rubbish.

The bottom line is, that you probably aren't the target customer, you didn't have much of a clue about the 'value' of studio photography (hopefully you now have a better idea), and you seem to be seeking sympathy for feeling a bit put out. You've then had several people with perhaps a tad more insight than yourself, explain why things are the way they are, yet you appear to still refuse to accept/understand things.

If you genuinely think that £200 for a studio session and some prints/digital files is 'blackmail', then I suggest you really don't want to know what the photographer who took the picture DrJ posted charges.

And you probably really, really don't want to know what us taxpayers paid for Annie Leibovitz to take this ghastly abomination:

[img] [/img]

It has.

So, you don't need to make a living then?

You've assumed that it's my only revenue stream.

"It has."

Yes, because I've just done it for you. 😆

"You've assumed that it's my only revenue stream."

I hadn't. I just wondered if you had intended it to be.

[quote=clodhopper ]It hasn't, actually. All we've gleaned from it, is that you don't want to pay what the photographer is charging. Fine, you don't have to. Claiming it's 'blackmail', or a 'flawed business model', or anything else, is just rubbish.
The bottom line is, that you probably aren't the target customer

Except he's been forced to be the customer because he got given the session as a present.

I think he has a quite reasonable point

[quote=outofbreath ]

Why? Nobody's forcing you to buy any pictures.

It might be a valid business model and a decent way for a photographer to make money, but it's a bit of a shit business model which basically relies upon putting pressure on people.

I hadn't. I just wondered if you had intended it to be.

Then why didn't you just ask that?

then I suggest you really don't want to know what the photographer who took the picture DrJ posted charges.

A four pack of Stella and a bag of chips?

I somehow doubt that the transaction for either of those portraits was initiated with a £50 voucher gift from an elderly relative.

You're going to go ****ing mental when you find out about CCTV

Genuine LOL with a slightly condescending s**** that was sharing in the hard hitting delivery of a truth that would shatter the dreams of the victim. 10/10

as to the professional? Some of the weekend worrier/chancers who call themselves that are like local pub singers compared to recording artists, they just don't cut it at the sharp end.
Snapping a wedding/sports event/badly dressed family on a white background is like comparing cooks to chefs.
One puts some ingredients together and sets the oven/timer, the other creates amazing tasting food from the same ingredients.

I'm thinking that those who have a business model which relies on getting the punter to fork out the real cost of a session they wouldn't have done if they hadn't been given a voucher are probably more towards the cook end.

I'm still unhappy because there are a load of pics of my family which exist but I'll never have.

This is the crux (and I said this at the outset). There is not a "load of pics" of your family - there is a load of raw, unprocessed image files and a percentage of those will have preview images for you to review.

outofbreath - Member

Yeah, in this case a family member bought us the session as a present for £60

So, this is what the OP said.
He was bought the session as a gift.

It does seem a bit lame to offer a 'portrait session' as a gift voucher, but then make the purchasing of the images taken at the session an extra.
I am not saying that £60 is an unreasonable charge for a photo session, but the implication of a 'portrait session gift voucher' to me would be at least one or two pictures at the end of it, even if it is only a couple of 5x7" prints, with an option to then buy more. Otherwise what is the point - the logical output would be an actual photo, or a digital copy (probably at a reduced resolution) otherwise the session is a complete waste of time, apart from the worth to the photographer of getting a bit of practice in.....

If £60 for that is not reasonable/feasible/an insult to the 'art', then the price of a voucher should include a couple of images - call it £80 or £100, I don't know.

All this about 'processing time etc. shouldn't come into it for this kind of session.
That can all be done beforehand with correct set-up of camera/lighting etc & perhaps a batch process routine to make the images 'pop' a bit or whatever, ala Venture.
I would expect that if I was paying a lot of money for a bespoke service, but for a 'portrait voucher session' the defaults would probably be fine.

I'm still unhappy because there are a load of pics of my family which exist but I'll never have.

Maybe you can use a request under the data protection act to get a copy of the images? Or call the police and tell them you think the photographer took some inappropriate images of your children while your back was turned?
This way you get the pics without paying.

I am not saying that £60 is an unreasonable charge for a photo session, but the implication of a 'portrait session gift voucher' to me would be at least one or two pictures at the end of it, even if it is only a couple of 5x7" prints, with an option to then buy more.

This is more or less the business model of school photos IME. Photographer comes to school, kids bring home a packet of photos and a price list. Parents pay for the ones they want. Despite the sausage factory nature of the operation we've had a few cute ones of MissJ over the years, but I'd never do that for something to put on the wall.

I think some people are mistaken in thinking just because something takes a long time, requires some skill and expensive equipment, that is automatically has value.

Just like anything else, its value is what someone is prepared to pay.

Simply what OOB was saying was he felt honor bound to go to the session after auntie Mable asked for the 5th time to see the pictures from the session. Then he gets there and gets the pressure sale of lots of pictures. Art meets the double glazing salesman 🙂

Is my [temporary] monitor colour off or is that pic of the Queen et al green as vom?

I think some people are mistaken in thinking just because something takes a long time, requires some skill and expensive equipment, that is automatically has value.

No - people are saying that because of all that stuff you mention, someone is unlikely to give it away for free, whatever the punter's opinion.

I think some people are mistaken in thinking just because something takes a long time, requires some skill and expensive equipment, that is automatically has value.
No - people are saying that because of all that stuff you mention, someone is unlikely to give it away for free, whatever the punter's opinion.

So your saying its not just the posters on here that over value it, Its the photographers as well 🙂

I think some people are mistaken in thinking just because something takes a long time, requires some skill and expensive equipment, that is automatically has value.

[url= http://dangerousminds.net/comments/illustrations_of_the_people_who_want_artists_to_work_for_free ]Welcome to the world of every self-employed creative[/url]

[img] [/img]

binners

Welcome to the world of every self-employed creative

This x10,000.

[img] [/img]

"someone is unlikely to give it away for free, whatever the punter's opinion."

Have you thought this through? As I understand it Groupon pay none of the voucher price to the photographer. So if its a Groupon Voucher the photographer *is* working for nothing. (Unless the punter buys an upgrade, which he may feel morally obliged to do but isn't legally obliged to do.)

It's funny but in my world we try and stay away from the public in terms of work. They have no concept of cost or value. Seems like Tesco skewed their views.

Anyone with a camcorder or pc can do it. Fine.

This is why we work with agencies , so we can at least operate with an understanding that runs both ways.

Box shifting may work for the masses but being a paid artisan is completely incompatible with the race to the bottom.

[img] [/img]

This is an example of a family portrait done by someone I know. You may like the style, you may not, but I don't think many "amateurs" would have been able to make such an image.

Sorry - bit late commenting on the family photo on Pg 4. But while it's entertaining, it's technically fairly poorly framed, assuming the toddler has feet and the young girl a right knee.

Adds tension, or something?

EDIT - the doorframe not *quite* lining up would annoy the shizzle outta me though.

EDIT - the doorframe not *quite* lining up would annoy the shizzle outta me though.

Yeah, thanks, now I've seen that it's annoying me too 🙂

EDIT - but I am being a bit picky - it's excellently lit and exposed

Broken composition rules just adds to the whackyness IMHO. Personally I love it.

It's not a criticism but there's a lot happening on the right of the shot that can only be luck as people move in the perfect location at the perfect instant. Nothing wrong with that, makes it even better IMHO.

Yeah, thanks, now I've seen that it's annoying me too

EDIT - but I am being a bit picky - it's excellently lit and exposed

DrJ - Member
With all due respect, those are 2 good arguments for paying pro sports photographers

DrJ - Member
Maybe, but to say that the "sports" photos above are as "good" as, say, these:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/oct/03/bodybuilding-championship-in-nepal-in-pictures
makes no sense.

(sorry to pick on you twisty)

I'm under no illusions that those photos I put up are not masterpieces, they are not even good photos by my own standards. However, you are not comparing apples with apples, I shared those pictures to help make a point about event photography - the photos taken of amateur athletes as they make your way around a marathon, MTB race etc and offered to the athletes to buy after the event. Picking on me by making direct comparisons with journalistic or artistic photographs is a fruitless exercise. I'll accept criticism in form of comparison to event photographs taken of you doing a running/cycling event.

Sorry - bit late commenting on the family photo on Pg 4. But while it's entertaining, it's technically fairly poorly framed, assuming the toddler has feet and the young girl a right knee.

It's technically well lit though and that is incredibly hard to do. I suspect that the photographer is the chap in the middle with a remote trigger behind his back?

Sorry - bit late commenting on the family photo on Pg 4. But while it's entertaining, it's technically fairly poorly framed, assuming the toddler has feet and the young girl a right knee

I guess that means you are not the target market for this particular type of work 🙂

I suspect that the photographer is the chap in the middle with a remote trigger behind his back?

Heh Heh. 🙂 No!

You say "well lit" - I see: a hard and unforgiving light throughout the image which has removed many subtle tones and makes the image fatiguing to look at and unrealistic. It's a bit "Venture" to me.

Caveat - as before, I'm not sure my monitor is set up *that* well.

Point of comparison - here's a picture with no prep/composition taken by an amateur on a bridge superzoom and even shot on jpeg+auto! However it appeals to me far more. Yes it's a bit oversaturated, but I find it more appealing due to the contrast in the lighting and the simplicity of it. And no white background!

[IMG] [/IMG]

Just goes to show we're all different I guess, and/or you always feel very attached to photos of your family/friends. It's my father, somewhere on a clifftop in Cornwall. Feel Free to slag it off 😉 [but not him]

Of course you prefer the picture of your dad - as you say, we all prefer pictures of our family. On my phone just now I have a photo of my daughter - it's blurry, over-exposed and not well framed. It means more to me than any portrait of a rock star by Mario Testino ever could.

When you look at your shot you see the history of your relationship with your dad. When I look at it I see some anonymous bloke in the middle of an anonymous place with a bright yellow flower distracting my attention. Who is he? Why is he there? Who are you? What is his relationship to you? I don't care - and nothing in the picture makes me care!!

So if I bought you that photo, paid 25pc of its value and left you to pick up the other £150 you might not be delighted.

If the photographer got me to buy some shots of someone else's dad I'd be pretty p'ed off - mostly with my carer for letting me out of the house unaccompanied 🙂

But your wife's maiden aunt's visiting next week. She'll be gutted if there isn't a photo of someone else's dad hanging in your house. £150 and a bit of house space to keep a lonely old woman happy isn't too much to ask is it?

You say "well lit" - I see: a hard and unforgiving light throughout the image which has removed many subtle tones and makes the image fatiguing to look at and unrealistic. It's a bit "Venture" to me.

Ironically the lighting presents the scene more how you would see it in reality. We are perhaps more used to seeing the aesthetic merits of photography that use light in a way far removed from how we would see things in relaity.

The lighting in this scene is an example of the trend in photography to portray things in a more realistic, rather than etheral way. Whether you like it or not is one thing but it's actually, technically, really hard to acheive that look. Hence 'technically' it's well lit.

contrast in the lighting and the simplicity of it

Everyone will prefer photographs that have an emotional connection to themselvs, why wouldn't they. It's easy to make that connection when it's a family member, much harder to do when it's not, which is why some photographs makes it as 'art' and others don't. Triggering an emotional response in your viewer is a real challenge.

But point of contention, there is no contrast in the lighting in that photograph - it's all lit the same apart from the face and in particular the eyes, which are in shadow. And it's not really simple, it's quite fussy; the background is in too sharp focus and detracts from the main subject.

But these are all technical points and make not one bit of difference to your emotional connection to the picture of your father and neither should they.

I'm referring to the lighting/contrast/colours on the subject, not the whole image.

EDIT - OK you addressed that at the same time as I posted.

But your wife's maiden aunt's visiting next week. She'll be gutted if there isn't a photo of someone else's dad hanging in your house. £150 and a bit of house space to keep a lonely old woman happy isn't too much to ask is it?

Do you begrudge buying all the photos, or buying any at all?

Your OP was basically saying that your wife was pressuring you into buying lots of photos, which by some leap of logic I don't really follow is the photographer's fault. Now you seem to be asserting that you don't want to buy any.

I'm saying the best way to buy photos, is to deal with a photographer yourself, from the start.

I'm saying the model where a third party person buys a voucher from a third party company which keeps the price of the voucher and leaves the Photographer to make what he can from up-selling is a worse way to run the process.

A lot of people have understood this point and it's been restated in all kinds of different words by different people so it's not hard to grasp. Given that I conclude the advocates of this mental business model can't justify it and have to straw man their way around it by pretending not to understand.

I think this is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen and MrSmith nailed it when he said that he's glad he doesn't have to sell his work to an (undiscerning) public.

The greatest tragedy of the modern age is the cult of mediocrity; you see it in so many areas. Music is a good example - we trade quality for convenience and ubiquity every day of the week and it's a shame, perhaps it's reflective of a culture built around instant gratification. Photography is no different; the general public are happy with shitty photographs from an amateur holding an iPhone if they are free, available now and can be posted to their Facebook page because they don't really care about the aesthetics, they only care about the share.

gt +lots

geetee1972 - Member

I think this is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen and MrSmith nailed it when he said that he's glad he doesn't have to sell his work to an (undiscerning) public.

The greatest tragedy of the modern age is the cult of mediocrity; you see it in so many areas. Music is a good example - we trade quality for convenience and ubiquity every day of the week and it's a shame, perhaps it's reflective of a culture built around instant gratification. Photography is no different; the general public are happy with shitty photographs from an amateur holding an iPhone if they are free, available now and can be posted to their Facebook page because they don't really care about the aesthetics, they only care about the share.

"The greatest tragedy of the modern age is the cult of mediocrity"

Well that and the events in the Middle East, but yeah, mainly mediocrity.

The lighting in this scene is an example of the trend in photography to portray things in a more realistic, rather than etheral way. Whether you like it or not is one thing but it's actually, technically, really hard to acheive that look. Hence 'technically' it's well lit.

Have to agree with other poster the lighting is nothing special, and a similar look would be achieved by simply bouncing the flash off the ceiling (if thats not the way it was originally lit, and i suspect it was)

Nothing technical about that.