Reminder Secure

'TFP Wedding Photographer Required' - The Controversy... Justified?

Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
04 July 2013 15:49
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from Shawry
There is a big difference between moving with the times and striving to make a living, perhaps if you were in this position you just might think differently? Whatever your day job is if your hourly rate was reduced by 50/75% wouldnt you have something to say just saying!!!




There's also a big difference between a normal PAYE day job and being a freelance photographer.  As a freelancer there are inherent risks, first and foremost you have to accept that, in no industry is freelance work ever easy.

We are also in the middle of a recession, luxuries such as wedding photos are difficult enough to justify without it, let alone when your clients are really struggling to make ends meet in their day to day lives.  You cannot simply blame cheaper photographers for difficult times.

Interestingly in your other post you mentioned about certain wedding photographers doing courses due to hard times.  How sure are you that this is indeed the reason they're doing this?   Perhaps doing courses there's more money, less stress, and can allow them to be more selective of their clients.  It also has the added benefit of massively raising their profile, afterall if they're the ones teaching all the other wedding photographers then clients must think they're the dog's RedChecker is a naughty person (I personally think it's a clever move providing you're good enough).  Whichever way you look at it, it's great promotion.

There are also photographers doing well out of all this, despite recession and ever lowering prices, you simply have to know where to look and be able to market yourself well enough to get that money.  I know of two or three photographers locally who specialise in shooting weddings for  wealthy city types and £5/6000 per gig is apparently normal for these guys.  They're good, but not the best photographers in the world (their work is very reportage-ish, wide apreture B&W for example) but their customers know what they're getting and probably most importantly these photographers have found a nice and have a foothold in these social circles.

So ultimately you can either adapt or find another job (which is what I'd do if work screwed me over), because the cheap photographer is unlikely to go away, and there are photographers doing well so the idea that photography is doomed is untrue.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Neal Shaw is off-line
04 July 2013 16:27
Shawry
Photographer
Shawry
Location
United Kingdom
West Midlands
Telford

You are probably right about the top wedding photographers training, it is a smart move and I don't blame them. But you wrongly assume I am effected by the budget clients and uncle bobs. I don't agree with it and strongly object to them. They are more than likely not insured and don't declare their earnings. I only do selective weddings each year and turn more down than book. I am quite happy with my business model but that doesn't mean I approve what's happening, we all have our opinions don't we?


4EverYoung is off-line
05 July 2013 18:25
Midnite
Photographer
Midnite
Location
United Kingdom
Cambridgeshire
Peterborough

you see the post joel is refuring to all the time on all the sites and it is what it is.

models seem to want to be paid when a photographer wants to work with them or has a concept.

it appears to be acceptable if you want to learn and improve to pay a professional model for their time and experience. Not a problem.

it comes across as a little erm cheeky for a model therefore to cast for personal gain a shoot to help develope or improve a portfolio, get baby bump photos of professional quality or wedding photos on a TFP/CD to me it implies that a model or models time is of more value than a photographer.

i understand TFP is a form of payment and if both parties get something out of the shoot all well and good but if you want something specific an offer of pay might be nice.
I have never failed But i have discovered thousands of approches which don't work.


Neil Anderson is off-line
06 July 2013 03:20
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from Midnite
you see the post joel is refuring to all the time on all the sites and it is what it is.

models seem to want to be paid when a photographer wants to work with them or has a concept.

it appears to be acceptable if you want to learn and improve to pay a professional model for their time and experience. Not a problem.

it comes across as a little erm cheeky for a model therefore to cast for personal gain a shoot to help develope or improve a portfolio, get baby bump photos of professional quality or wedding photos on a TFP/CD to me it implies that a model or models time is of more value than a photographer.

i understand TFP is a form of payment and if both parties get something out of the shoot all well and good but if you want something specific an offer of pay might be nice.



As long as castings are open and honest , anything is acceptable (within the purestorm rules).
What is unacceptable is people interfering with other people's castings and shoot arrangements.

Most of the complaints seem to come from sad photographers who think their 'skills' (expensive cameras) are not valued enough by the world in general but particularly by models.


.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Will is off-line
06 July 2013 03:53
Photoimager
Photographer
Photoimager
Location
United Kingdom
Staffordshire
Stoke-on-Trent

Taking a deep breath and in a random order:

If someone posts a casting call and gets a return that they like then it is their choice.

If someone is taking on paid work and not declaring the income they are not having the same overheads as someone who is as well as their being dishonest and cheating the rest of us. ( General statement, I am not saying or implying that this applies to anyone in this thread. )

If someone is taking on paid work and is not insured in a professional capacity then they are fools. Use your camera gear just once for a paid gig and it is most likely to disqualify your equipment from cover under household insurance. Same applies for some car insurance. Then there is the liability / indemnity matter.

There is potentially a difference between a qualified member of a trade related organisation and an unqualified. Don't judge one based on the other.

Some people use leisurely set-up images with models for their advertising which, in the case of weddings and other events, is not, to me, an act of integrity or honesty unless clearly declared as such.

Having a business model that charges sub-£400 per wedding is not viable as a source of income, even if in the 'quiet times' the return from other genres of photography fills in the booking gap.

Competing on price is not a viable business model, the bottom has fallen out of the photographer market.

Working professionals might not produce the best 'one-off' images but they are more likely to be consistent in 'producing the goods'.

Where there's a Will, there's a way.


OldMaster is off-line
07 July 2013 12:56
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
Location
United Kingdom
Hertfordshire
Harpenden

"So yes, wedding professionals could create a guild of some kind as a quality mark - but it would have to be meaningful (i.e. have a proper entry criteria, and a credible process for removing members), and ultimately the most it would ever be is a marketing tool"

Eh!!? So what were/are the MPA,RPS,SWPP/BIPP then? I accept that actually they are of no specific benefit in terms of "protecting" the trade or even members because we live in a market driven economy and even these clubs were/are elitist "members clubs" for their own self gain which is why I choose no longer to be a member of any of them and no longer use all the nonsense letters after my name.

As for the comments about "professionals", yes, they need to be covered for public liability, public indemnity and their kit PAT tested, etc, because, yes, someone can get damaged by tripping over photographers' kit and yes, they can be sued to restage a whole wedding.

As for Unions, they were there to protect those in trades enabling them to have a basic standard of living not impacted by the forces of the free market. Since Thatcher we have seen their powers ravaged (NUJ being one which covered press photographers) resulting in the situation we have now, an ever widening gap where the rich get richer from the labours of the poor and the poor, now unprotected, are at the mercy of the rich and the bosses once more.

I will never accept that we have to live in a generation where success is gauged by how much you earn or what you can screw out of other people!



16 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
Powell22
Arterotica ElegantCaptures George99 hovephotoman john_at_tina_spice laurencejpower oro panda49 powerbook92 severndigital stevegosh Steveh32 TonyHazell xsa73 zzdigital