Blog
Welcome
This is the blog for professional photographers, and those who aspire to be. Our aim is to help professional photographers build long-term, sustainable careers.
loading facebook page
Recent posts
[caption id="attachment_17731" align="alignnone" width="500"]
© James Yeats-Brown[/caption]
James Yeats-Brown is a leading UK social photographer specialising in children's portraiture and the creation of family albums. He asks why shooting for a fee or commission shouldn't work in the social sector, since it's common in other areas of photography, and thinks a sales model based purely on speculative product upselling is dangerous these days - mainly thanks to new consumer-oriented products from Apple, Blurb, Photobox etc. This began as a comment on Ian's post suggesting the Shoot and Share model is bad for your business...
As ever, an impassioned and thought provoking argument. I have been trying to get my head round putting more emphasis on charging for time as opposed to leveraging product for a while now so I have followed this debate with interest. After all, most photography outside the social sector is conducted on a fee or commission basis where the photographer is paid for his or her time (and skill) to produce images appropriate for a particular use. This is a tried and tested model, it’s how the provision of most services happens, why not embrace it more in the social market?
So, while not being a big wedding photographer and doing a fair bit of commissioned work, I can definitely see the attraction David Jay’s proposition has for all sorts of people. The big caveat of course is that the upfront fee must be sufficiently worthwhile and on this, unsurprisingly, proponents of Shoot & Share seem to be a little coy. Nevertheless I think it’s a bit unfair to shoot down the concept of making money upfront as “simply not believable”. It’s the only way I get to cover some of the events I do and get paid well for it - and books and albums still remain an option.
It is suggested that Shoot & Sharers are making it difficult for other photographers to justify massive markups on prints and products. Well, yes and no. There has always been a market for the dollar print and those in it are welcome to it. And as far as I can see this is where the whole PASS system falls flat on its face compared to more professional offerings such as Workspace and SmugMug, which allow photographers to conduct their businesses with a degree of autonomy, particularly in the all important pricing.
No, the real game changers who are putting pressure on product prices in the social market are the likes of Apple, Blurb and here in the UK, Photobox. They and others like them all have in common the ability to reach large numbers of informed, aspirational, often very creative people (ie our clients) and empower them sufficiently to challenge photographers’ offerings. And the public gets ever more discerning, a point not lost on Queensberry, as Queensberry Print itself opens its doors and products to the consumer market.
So where to go? Image creators, editors, story-tellers, designers, communicators - these are what photographers of all kinds have to be now and we need to charge for it. Tempting as it may look, this is where the Shoot & Share philosophy for me suddenly falls down because if our clients are sophisticated enough to place real value on these virtues in the first place they’re going to expect something more meaningful at the end of the day than a free download and a $1 Dollar print. That’s below the standard they’ve come to expect even from Apple, Blurb, Photobox et al.
Looking ahead I wouldn't want to have my income entirely dependent on product sales after the event. In particular I think the concept of the speculative upsale is a dangerous model to follow now. I don't shoot many weddings and I don't have a high street studio so I am sure that there are many who might disagree with me. Then again, the relatively affluent city of Winchester where I live can't support a quality photo studio anymore - the local Venture studio went bust a couple of years ago and another outfit came and went practically overnight.
My view for what it's worth, is that the cycle that started with the advent of professional "lifestyle" photography in the 90's is coming to its natural end - everyone is a lifestyle photographer now on their iPhone. It's a frustrating place to be for photographers trying to make a living - the irony is that the market for images (in terms of production and consumption) has never been bigger. So I think there are big opportunities for people who can keep their heads - the real skills as ever lie in high production values, ruthless editing, great story-telling and face to face engagement, not just virtual. In other words to be authentic. Those values are best produced and delivered in the form of something beautiful and lasting…. The trick is to try and have the client desire that too and have them appreciate the cost implications before the event and I confess I don't always find that an easy task.
You can see more of James' work here.
© James Yeats-Brown[/caption]
James Yeats-Brown is a leading UK social photographer specialising in children's portraiture and the creation of family albums. He asks why shooting for a fee or commission shouldn't work in the social sector, since it's common in other areas of photography, and thinks a sales model based purely on speculative product upselling is dangerous these days - mainly thanks to new consumer-oriented products from Apple, Blurb, Photobox etc. This began as a comment on Ian's post suggesting the Shoot and Share model is bad for your business...
As ever, an impassioned and thought provoking argument. I have been trying to get my head round putting more emphasis on charging for time as opposed to leveraging product for a while now so I have followed this debate with interest. After all, most photography outside the social sector is conducted on a fee or commission basis where the photographer is paid for his or her time (and skill) to produce images appropriate for a particular use. This is a tried and tested model, it’s how the provision of most services happens, why not embrace it more in the social market?
So, while not being a big wedding photographer and doing a fair bit of commissioned work, I can definitely see the attraction David Jay’s proposition has for all sorts of people. The big caveat of course is that the upfront fee must be sufficiently worthwhile and on this, unsurprisingly, proponents of Shoot & Share seem to be a little coy. Nevertheless I think it’s a bit unfair to shoot down the concept of making money upfront as “simply not believable”. It’s the only way I get to cover some of the events I do and get paid well for it - and books and albums still remain an option.
It is suggested that Shoot & Sharers are making it difficult for other photographers to justify massive markups on prints and products. Well, yes and no. There has always been a market for the dollar print and those in it are welcome to it. And as far as I can see this is where the whole PASS system falls flat on its face compared to more professional offerings such as Workspace and SmugMug, which allow photographers to conduct their businesses with a degree of autonomy, particularly in the all important pricing.
No, the real game changers who are putting pressure on product prices in the social market are the likes of Apple, Blurb and here in the UK, Photobox. They and others like them all have in common the ability to reach large numbers of informed, aspirational, often very creative people (ie our clients) and empower them sufficiently to challenge photographers’ offerings. And the public gets ever more discerning, a point not lost on Queensberry, as Queensberry Print itself opens its doors and products to the consumer market.
So where to go? Image creators, editors, story-tellers, designers, communicators - these are what photographers of all kinds have to be now and we need to charge for it. Tempting as it may look, this is where the Shoot & Share philosophy for me suddenly falls down because if our clients are sophisticated enough to place real value on these virtues in the first place they’re going to expect something more meaningful at the end of the day than a free download and a $1 Dollar print. That’s below the standard they’ve come to expect even from Apple, Blurb, Photobox et al.
Looking ahead I wouldn't want to have my income entirely dependent on product sales after the event. In particular I think the concept of the speculative upsale is a dangerous model to follow now. I don't shoot many weddings and I don't have a high street studio so I am sure that there are many who might disagree with me. Then again, the relatively affluent city of Winchester where I live can't support a quality photo studio anymore - the local Venture studio went bust a couple of years ago and another outfit came and went practically overnight.
My view for what it's worth, is that the cycle that started with the advent of professional "lifestyle" photography in the 90's is coming to its natural end - everyone is a lifestyle photographer now on their iPhone. It's a frustrating place to be for photographers trying to make a living - the irony is that the market for images (in terms of production and consumption) has never been bigger. So I think there are big opportunities for people who can keep their heads - the real skills as ever lie in high production values, ruthless editing, great story-telling and face to face engagement, not just virtual. In other words to be authentic. Those values are best produced and delivered in the form of something beautiful and lasting…. The trick is to try and have the client desire that too and have them appreciate the cost implications before the event and I confess I don't always find that an easy task.
You can see more of James' work here.
Stephen Baugh
on
August 27, 2013, 9:24 am
said:
Hey David,
I respect the feedback, but this is starting to turn into a David Jay conversation. Most of your posts are about defending Pass and David.
I don't think it's needed now. He's a big boy with a big strong community. In my humble opinion even if 90% of the industry hated him it would probably be good for his business. It's galvanising and makes his supporters more strongly want to defend their ground and their past decisions. He'll be ok.
I agree with much of what you've said about negitivity and would love if we could get past it as an industry. What I do think however is that we all have a path that is right for us and many could find patience with the fact that others have a different point of few.
What I will say though is that I see more stress and suffering today than I did 10 years ago; and in new and established photographers. I think the average quality of work has gone down, and I am not sure the bride on average gets as good a service as before.
I hear more self serving conversations than I do about being of service, of delighting and spoiling the bride. The conversation is often more about 'my time' or 'my happiness' rather than 'their delight'.
I worry that we blame the environment for peoples struggling but if you phone a photographer it's crazy how often their phone isn't even answered. Many people will spend more time tweaking their web page or chatting in forums, but don't take the time to decide how to price.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but there is a hole in the middle somewhere, and the idea of 'the business of photography' is being missed for many.
davidmedinaphotography
on
August 27, 2013, 11:43 am
said:
Don't worry Stephen. I totally get you. That is the wonderful part of having options. No solution is perfect and we need variety.
Just consider Pass competition. They look at the "weakness" of Pass and created a similar product but offering what they think Pass missed.
While I would prefer for them to allow the photog to choose the selling price, I don't thinks is really important for those who use and benefit from the Shoot and share model and particularly Pass.
For starters, the Print option is just a very recent addition. It wasn't part of the shoot and share model Pass implies.
Shoot and share implies that you do not care about small print sales. I certainly don't and as a matter of fact, when I used Smugmug I sold my 4x6 as cheap as I could get away with. Guess what? meager sales anyway.
In my experience, most wedding clients don't care for small prints. Now that may be different in different parts of the world, but in general I think in the US is that way.
So most Pass users don't mind that the 4x6 is sold for $1 because $1 i better than $0.
Now, if you sell enough 4x6, 5x7 or 8x10 to be a substantial source of income, then shoot and share a-la-Pass is not and has never been for that person. It is just the wrong tool.
I am convinced that more companies will adopt the shoot and share models with their own particular twists as Queensberry, shoot proof and Digitized have already done.
davidmedinaphotography
on
August 27, 2013, 8:58 am
said:
Let me give you an example of the lack of fairness I constantly see discussions that involved David jay.
Let's take the "Spray and pray".
People has been grossly unfair about this. David Jay has never promoted the "Spray and Pray" method of wedding photography. His words have bee grossly and intentionally taken out of context just with the sole purpose of defame and trash the guy.
Read it for yourself in context and it was an suggestion given to someone that is doing his or her first wedding solo and goes into a panic attack. In that situation is better to spray and pray that do nothing. That was it.
From that haters, and yes, they were bonifide haters, started to claim that David Jay was teaching people not to worry about learning to shoot properly but to spray and pray their weddings. That was utterly false. Did anyone care to correct it it? no.
The funny thing is that I just heard someone today bring the spray and pray and said that that was wrong yet, minutes later told the audience that as a sport photographer to shot in barrage so you can get a good shot! Isn't that "spray and pray"? It surely sound to me like it is and a big difference, this guy was advocating this method of shooting as normal in commercial photography were he is well known.
Again, this is the utter hypocrisy of those who enjoy trashing david jay.
Now David jay is not perfect and I personally had heavy confrontations with him (no, I do not know him personally) yet, he has extended a helping hand every time I have requested one.
What I am really talking is about fairness and truthfulness. And honestly, those who have made DJ their enemy haven't either.
davidmedinaphotography
on
August 27, 2013, 4:18 am
said:
Thanks Stephen. I agree with you that the discussion should be level headed and respectful. I participated in the original blog that started all of this and because I "defended" Pass I was automatically labeled brainwashed, a fool and an ignorant.
I have been around David Jay since 2007 in his OSP forum. And while most established photographers were very protective of their knowledge and weren't not willing to help anyone they considered their competition, People like David Jay, Dan Sanders and many others were willing to help those of us who were new to the wedding photography industry.
They told us what books could help our businesses, and freely, yes, freely, shared knowledge with us.
On the other side you had forums like DWF that only wanted to tell us how hard it was to be a wedding photographer (for selfish reasons because what they wanted was to keep competition out). If we wanted to learned we had to worship at their altars and pay big money for their "knowledge".
In one side we got a welcoming atmosphere and positive support and on the other side negativity and obstacles.
That is why so many are thankful and appreciate him, and it is not because he has an hypnotic latch to them.
The Easy Path...
The truth is that the path to professional wedding photography has always been an easy one, way before David Jay was even a photographer. That is why so many choose this side of the photographic industry.
In my experience and study of this industry tells me that what is really happening -and it is not new- is that when those same people who took advantage of the easy entry become established, more knowledgeable, and successful as an effort of self preservation complaint about how easy is to become a wedding photographer and now, just now, after they are in, they want to raise the entry bar.
Mostly not because of any genuine interest for the "industry" but because they want to put a stop at the competition, they want to stop people like they were once, from entering "his" industry. Hypocritical, don't you think?
It has always been the easier photography business to start.
If someone is to blame is Nikon, Canon, Sony. They are the ones making the technical requirements to be a photographer lower than ever. Places like creative lives who offer education for free also are helping in lowering the entry too.
But at the root, what drives the opposition to David Jay, the hatred, is a sense of self preservation to keep out those that like themselves did once, want to take advantage of how easy is to establish a photographic business. They want to keep out the competition.
The "older" photographer wants to curb down competition and protect his or her business. For them, because DJ is helping those who want to enter in by the easy gate, he is the enemy to their existence.
This "older" photographers see the "new kids in the block" as a threat to their business and to keep them out they raise the flag. The funny things is that this "older" photographers were once the "new kids in the block".
What is really hurting this industry is the hatred that is going on. I left DWF because I got tired and fed up of the constant ranting and the blame game.
Don't be fooled. The true motivator behind all of this is not a concern for the industry but a way to deal with competition.
And because DJ is helping their competition - "the new kids in the bloc" by fueling their hope and passion for their business, he is the wedding industry devil.
The truth is that there is as much need for the cheap, commoditize wedding photographer to the high end wedding photographers. Not everyone can be a Yervant or Ghionis, or should be, no matter how much we strive of want to.
Stephen Baugh
on
August 27, 2013, 11:19 am
said:
You're right we are competitors. We have been for years now. I'm also happy to accept that this might be seen a conflict and of interest. My point is that we're not trying to make the discussion about David. The blog posts are shoot and share about the debate.
We're big supporters of shoot and share and have been for a long time now. We don't disagree with that point and if anything are frustrated with people that don't share as they missing an opportunity.
I'm asking that we stay on topic about the debate, not about what everyone thinks personally of him.
Shoot and share is good. I don't think $1 for a print sale is good. It's easy to say charge up front, and pretend you don't have to sell to get a sustainable price, bottom line is you need to sell.
I think it is completely sad the way people react to David, and in fact you wouldn't have to look far to find a post with me talking about how shameful and sad how some people treat others online especially if they wouldn't do it face to face.
My point is the discussion was meant to about and hopefully support the idea of shot and share. I'd like that to be on workspace and workspace does things differently for a reason. But at the end of the day I don't care about the platform I care about a good business model for photographers.
What I was responding to is your post above is not about the business model it is about how he has been treated. That's a different topic. If you think we are attacking him, I'm sorry and I promise you we're not. LOL if I wanted to do that there would be names before his. In a weird sort of way we were defending the idea, and then pointing out our variation on it.
Thanks for joining the discussion :-)
davidmedinaphotography
on
August 26, 2013, 6:22 am
said:
This whole Pass debate remind me of an X Files episode where Fox Mulder see conspiracies every where.
The first thing that Pass seeks to change is how photographers deliver the files to their clients. They are just merely replacing the disc for the cloud. Nothing earthshaking here.
But where Pass is a paradigm shift is in the way photographers see print sales from weddings. And I think a lot of photographers that criticize Pass are losing perspective of what it really affects and are blowing things out of proportion, mostly because they either dislike or hate David Jay.
James make the point that Pass is "making it difficult for other photographers to justify massive markups on prints and products." Again, those photographers that react that way do more of dislike or hatred to DJ and not from actual facts.
Please, let put this into the proper context. What type of prints are we talking about? And are the sales of those print really a substantial revenue center?
We are really talking about the sales of 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10.
The fact that you can sell small prints through Pass should not affect the sales of large prints or albums anymore than the selling of the disc does.
What bothers me from most of the debates about pass is the lack of reality to the discussion.
Are photographer really selling that many small prints from weddings anymore? Most opponents of Pass act like there is a great loss of revenue from the sales of this prints. Well, my experience is that the sale of this prints is a dead proposition.
The selling of the disc, acceptable print quality from consumer labs and the burgeoning of inexpensive and great quality phone and small cameras have render the sales of small prints from wedding a loss proposition long before the advent of Pass.
I think what some photographers have done is use Pass and David jay as an unfortunate and unfair scapegoat for industry changes for which neither have anything to do with.
David jay, like each one of us, is a businessman with product. He wants to sell it. Those who use the products do because they believe is good for them.
It is disrespectful and offensive to accuse Pass users as brainwashed ignorant fools just because they happen to agree with DJ and Pass..
Let's take Queensberry as an example. QB believe they make the best album. Do they? Some believe so and other do not. Some think they are worth it while others think they are over priced. But I do not see those who do not levering personal attacks against the owners of QB. I do not see anyone saying that those who pay for them are ignorant fools or brainwashed by QB marketing.
At the end of the day, the decision to use or not to use Pass is an individual business decision. If it works for you it will be worth it. If it does not, you won't use it.
But to say that Pass or the "shoot & share" model will single handed cause the demise of the wedding industry is ludicrous and plain non sense.
The Shoot and share has been around for a while and will continue to stay with us. It was called Shoot and burn and pass only provide an alternate delivery method.
And small print sales from weddings have been dead since digital enter the industry.
davidmedinaphotography
on
August 27, 2013, 10:36 am
said:
Actually, I would say bride are better taken care of now than 15 or 20 years ago. I have been in the photography business since 1980 and a pro since 1990. Studied advertising photography and worked as a PJ prior to become a wedding photographer in 2005.
As a matter of fact, wedding photographers were seen as bottom feeder, a necessary evil by the rest of us "true professionals" that worked in the commercial and newspaper. Wedding photography wasn't taken seriously as a photographic art.
So I disagree that there were such a thing as the good old days of wedding photography. I see more creativity, better customer service, more caring for the bride and groom beyond the job, more passionate people about photography and their clients that I have ever seen in this industry now than in any time before.
The idea of the business of photography is not being missed by many of those who choose to use Pass as a tool. It is just a different business model for wedding photographers that many old times are refusing to accept (their right) and are choosing to demonize (not their right). That is why I take the time to post. Because I am firm believer that every tool should be judge in its merits (maybe the lawyer in me) and not based in superficial perceptions and bias.
Rather than defending Pass or David Jay what I am trying to bring balance and an opposite point of view to this discussion and bring perspective.
Pass, as a tool, is good for many photographers and I am just trying to bring that out and the reasons why people have led to believe that it is not.
I love Queensberry and its products. I believe they invest a lot in educating us. And it is ver kind for them to provide Photojunction for free. But I cannot ignore that QB is in part a competitor of Pass and as such it has a conflict of interest.
Stephen Baugh
on
August 26, 2013, 8:15 am
said:
What a wonderful response David. We agree, in fact we didn't start this to bring attention to David, personally we like him and most of our staff speak highly of him from when he was a client.
I think we we're just trying to create a more level headed discussion as it's so important. Everything new is uncomfortable, and when your comfortable start looking for what's new.
I don't completely agree with him and for matter the rest of the group, not because of who they are (they seem like nice people) but only because they have a slightly misleading, very "positive", "easily digestible" and somewhat hypnotic message about what wedding photography is. It is all these things, but there is a side which is much more about hard work, how you keep going once you've done 5 years and are board, how you do your first pivot and reinvent the brand, what about when your an "old guy" because your now 10 years older than your clients.
This is the point that where most people struggle but are caught in a commoditised pricing and business approach. I think the ill feeling comes not from the peoples feelings about personality, but about how the constant focus on simple rather than service and all the commoditised messages.
