Discussion in 'General Shop Talk' started by Kawi_T, Apr 8, 2008.
The 50% off thing is a way to get business. It's probably working for him. It's the same concept as when you send a letter to seniors or something and it says, "Order by March 30 and you get 25% off" or something like that. It's just a smart way to convince people to give you money NOW.
It seems to me that someone who is throwing around a lot of names ("The Wedding Media Group began videotaping weddings in the deep south in 1988, yet it wasn't until America's Next Top Model Judge and famed fashion photographer Nigel Barker selected us to cover his wedding gala to Vogue Supermodel Crissy Chin that we started our trendy and upscale wedding photography division.") would be charging more than he is and the website would look nicer. He seems to hyperbolize a lot.
I didn't look through a ton of galleries, but the photos aren't the greatest I've seen, but definitely not the worst either. It's hard to say if she's getting a good deal without knowing what sort of package she's paying for and how much it is.
The album section was interesting. It says that the bride can pretty much design her own album (I would love that), but I was left wondering if it really meant that she would basically be doing all of the work of putting it together and then getting charged the regular price for an album where she did all of the work.
Just a side note you might want to reconsider posting a direct link as he can likely come directly back to this site and se all the comments made (which may or may not be a good/bad thing)
Firstly, 95% of the time...the photographer has the right to use the photos for their portfolio anyway. The photographer, as the artist, owns the copyright to images they create...not the client. So saying that he gives' 1/2 off for that, seems like marketing strategy. Nothing wrong with that, if the bride thinks she is getting a sweet deal, then it's a win-win. Just know that most other photographers will also use the photos as they see fit. Most will even have this as a clause in their contract.
It may be a different question if the photographer is selling these images to Debeers or some company for their advertising. In that case, he would need a signed model release (which may or may not be part of his contract). But for his own portfolio...a model release isn't needed. AFAIK
As for the photographer in question...I've seen better and I've seen worse. If she is happy with what she's seen and the price she is paying...then good for her.
What in the world does this have to do with anything? when you use a photographer you should know that he is making money off of them if you don't want that I guess you would need to specify but Iimagine that would cost. Personally I think for a guy who has all these big claims his site seems awfully cheesy. Also if his site is an example of the best he has to offer I am not totally impressed I have seen work here that is so much better. By the way I thought Ron White was a comedian and not a very good one at that.
I don't think there is a problem with a direct link, is there? I haven't slandered him, I'm just researching him. If he is a good photographer then his work will stand up to scrutiny.
Thanks everyone for your input. The bride-to-be has chosen to use him. She asked me my opinion but I didn't give her one. I didn't feel qualified to give it.
Point taken. However I don't think he would appreciate being scrutinized without forwarning and/or ability to defend himself or make explanations. Does that make sense?
Yes it does. I will try to e-mail him and make him aware of this discussion. I think it would be interesting to hear from him personally.
Tom, Your statement that starts this blog, about what I told your friend in chicago is false. You have sent this discussion into a tailspin and it is causing me un warranted problems. who is your client , and how do we contact you direct ?
Separate names with a comma.