Francisco Castro wrote:
Is is just me, or is anyone else annoyed whenever they see a casting call for a TF shoot for weddings/baptisms/Bar Mitzvahs/Quincinieras/etc.? I appreciate the fact that some people's budget is really tight, but I think that's abusing the system.

It's an insane amount of work to shoot events like weddings, and I think it's just tacky not to even offer a modicum amount.

I know some people will say, "It's their time. If they want to shoot a wedding TF then that's their business.". And I agree. It's their time and effort. Let them deal with it.

But what do you think? Asking a wedding be shot TF--- tacky, or not-tacky?

I haven't looked for them but it does sound a bit weird considering it's a modelling site, however, do I get annoyed ? No


People seem to forget that the ends of the market you're talking about (and I mean no disrespect to those in it) are not usually able to pay, so why should this annoy a Wedding Photographer? Its not like they can pay your rates otherwise they wouldn't be posting for TF. Not every wedding is big or expensive and not every couple can afford to pay. Far better to use your energy on those that can.

How are photographers to learn to shoot weddings? Most pros don't want an inexperienced photographer holding them back or maybe even competing with them. No paying couple are going to put hard earned cash down without seeing some evidence they shoot weddings. And most beginners can't fund a mock wedding to create the pics with.

I suppose all you pro wedding photographers were grown on a tree somewhere with a camera in one hand and a full wedding album in the other?   :-p

Matt Belshaw wrote:
That sadly is the culture we live in today. Everyone is out for what they can get, everything costs money and so people will try anything they can to get free stuff.

It would be funny if the photographer took along 300 model release forms for every person at the wedding though

...and in today's culture those "300 model release forms for every person at the wedding" would be required if you even hoped to use an image in a public presentation (i.e. the web or studio show) without getting your pants sued off.

afplcc wrote:
This is a tough time to be in business as a photographer.  The barriers to entry have almost disappeared.  The public perception of skill involved is uninformed.  And we live in an economic climate where the idea of bargaining for the lowest possible rate is accepted almost across the board.

Ed

I always smile when someone says they can take pictures just like a pro and that photographers charge too much only because they buy $$$$$ cameras. If they bought cheaper cameras then they could charge less. Like I said, I smile. Sometimes I have to leave the room because whatever I was drinking started to come out of my nose.

Just laugh it off and walk away. Life's too short to be miffed about those 'little minds'.

Francisco Castro wrote:
Is is just me, or is anyone else annoyed whenever they see a casting call for a TF shoot for weddings/baptisms/Bar Mitzvahs/Quincinieras/etc.? I appreciate the fact that some people's budget is really tight, but I think that's abusing the system.

It's an insane amount of work to shoot events like weddings, and I think it's just tacky not to even offer a modicum amount.

I know some people will say, "It's their time. If they want to shoot a wedding TF then that's their business.". And I agree. It's their time and effort. Let them deal with it.

But what do you think? Asking a wedding be shot TF--- tacky, or not-tacky?

Isn't everything that you get on the internet free?

George Ruge wrote:
I would never shoot a wedding, even for tons of $$$, let alone do it for free!!!:-))))

Me too. Weddings, like children and pets photo shoots, are totally not my thing.

Brian Scanlon wrote:

Isn't everything that you get on the internet free?

HUH?! You get Netflix for free?!?

natural beauties of qld wrote:
I would think that it is more dangerous than tacky.

If photographers are anywhere near as flaky as models (and there are plenty of threads to suggest just that), there is a good chance that the person booking the TF shoot will have no photographer on the day and no photographs.

With such an important occasion as a wedding, I would have thought  that a fee of some sort would be prudent insurance.

That's why you would pay someone to shoot your wedding. You see your problem is you "thought".

Most people today don't even think and then later have a hard time trying to figure out what went wrong. I'm not sure at what point people just stopped using their brain for common reasoning and I'm not sure it's even fair to say that more people are stupid these days but there is something seriously wrong with how the world is running if people can't see the big picture. Maybe it's tunnel vision thinking. One goal no matter what the cost.

natural beauties of qld wrote:
I would think that it is more dangerous than tacky.

If photographers are anywhere near as flaky as models (and there are plenty of threads to suggest just that), there is a good chance that the person booking the TF shoot will have no photographer on the day and no photographs.

With such an important occasion as a wedding, I would have thought  that a fee of some sort would be prudent insurance.

Or, y'know, if the official photographer is a very good friend of yours, chances are they won't flake.

All Yours Photography wrote:

So the noob shooter should give his time to a commercial studio to be sent out to do the same thing for a price as he was going to do for "free"??

If he is going to give his time to a studio, he should be going out as a second shooter, not gambling the couple's memories while the studio still makes a buck

You clearly misread my post. Who said anything about the noob going out alone gambling while the studio may make a buck on his/her back? I clearly stated that they should give their time to a proper wedding studio instead, and no proper studio in the civilized world would send out a noob-shooter alone to be responsible for an entire wedding. Which was my *point: for the noob-shooter to invest their time and efforts while someone is there to oversee that no disasters take place, and no crowd-sourcing is occurring. And photographers in-general aren't getting a bad rap because of this noob who things they can take on the world with their T3i/D7000/etc. A little common sense would be useful while conversing with the adults, please. Thank you; we prefer to stay civilized and coherent

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Jay Farrell wrote:

That too! Exposure huh? Expose yourself and let me punch you in the dick.....how's that for exposure for trying to take advantage of me? LOL

+1!!!!!

Over-exposure causes skin cancer. And other such ailments, I'm sure

Augustine York wrote:
The photographer I had at my wedding was essentially a TF photographer.

She needed the experience of shooting a wedding by herself from start to finish, and I could not afford 1k+ for a photographer. She got a day of experience and good references, I got photos I could not have afforded otherwise.

However, I will be dropping some cash on her this Christmas to buy prints/albums.

There is ZERO point in being upset or aggravated by someone asking for a cheap or TF wedding photographer. Clearly they would not have the means or the desire to pay a higher rate anyway, so you are not losing out on any business.

Live and let live.

Incorrect, Augustine. It *hurts working photographers when Randy Rebel and Diana D90 come in and jump-on offers of quasi-clients who either cannot or refuse to spend the money real photography costs. When noobs get hardons for paying work and either shoot free for recognition or shoot cheep for a few bucks to get their next case of beer or baggie, their undercutting all of us badly. Essentially, these retail clients AKA stingy cheapskates are collectively practicing crowdsourcing, which forces working REAL photographers to cut more corners in order to stay competitive and survive.

I'd like a Caddy, but I settled for a 3 year-old Honda Accord V6 EX-R. I eventually decided I would be a full-time photographer, then after losing nearly 20 lbs because I could not afford to eat better, and moving to taking public transit, I've gone back to working as a photographer as a 2nd job so I may have a pleasant disposition again. And...have a life, paying all my bills and no-longer in debt. Giving it away free or cheap is like kicking another working photographer square in the nuts. My poor, poor unborn children.....

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Augustine York wrote:
The photographer I had at my wedding was essentially a TF photographer.

She needed the experience of shooting a wedding by herself from start to finish, and I could not afford 1k+ for a photographer. She got a day of experience and good references, I got photos I could not have afforded otherwise.

However, I will be dropping some cash on her this Christmas to buy prints/albums.

There is ZERO point in being upset or aggravated by someone asking for a cheap or TF wedding photographer. Clearly they would not have the means or the desire to pay a higher rate anyway, so you are not losing out on any business.

Live and let live.

Incorrect, Augustine. It *hurts working photographers when Randy Rebel and Diana D90 come in and jump-on offers of quasi-clients who either cannot or refuse to spend the money real photography costs. When noobs get hardons for paying work and either shoot free for recognition or shoot cheep for a few bucks to get their next case of beer or baggie, their undercutting all of us badly. Essentially, these retail clients AKA stingy cheapskates are collectively practicing crowdsourcing, which forces working REAL photographers to cut more corners in order to stay competitive and survive.

I'd like a Caddy, but I settled for a 3 year-old Honda Accord V6 EX-R. I eventually decided I would be a full-time photographer, then after losing nearly 20 lbs because I could not afford to eat better, and moving to taking public transit, I've gone back to working as a photographer as a 2nd job so I may have a pleasant disposition again. And...have a life, paying all my bills and no-longer in debt. Giving it away free or cheap is like kicking another working photographer square in the nuts. My poor, poor unborn children.....

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

Incorrect, Augustine. It *hurts working photographers when Randy Rebel and Diana D90 come in and jump-on offers of quasi-clients who either cannot or refuse to spend the money real photography costs. When noobs get hardons for paying work and either shoot free for recognition or shoot cheep for a few bucks to get their next case of beer or baggie, their undercutting all of us badly. Essentially, these retail clients AKA stingy cheapskates are collectively practicing crowdsourcing, which forces working REAL photographers to cut more corners in order to stay competitive and survive.

I'd like a Caddy, but I settled for a 3 year-old Honda Accord V6 EX-R. I eventually decided I would be a full-time photographer, then after losing nearly 20 lbs because I could not afford to eat better, and moving to taking public transit, I've gone back to working as a photographer as a 2nd job so I may have a pleasant disposition again. And...have a life, paying all my bills and no-longer in debt. Giving it away free or cheap is like kicking another working photographer square in the nuts. My poor, poor unborn children.....

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Yawn.

Ivanafox wrote:
The "problem" isn't Randy Rebel and Diana D90, the problem is that there is a market for those photographers and ypu don't like it. My sisters wedding was shot by a dodgy amatuer, 30 years ago, it was all she could afford, so it's not a new phenonemon. If you had your way she would have had no photo's at all.

When I was in my 20's I had a few friends do the glamour shoot thing where they were charged $200 for a shoot then got the suprise gouging of  $600 for a photo from that shoot. I know one didn't get the photo, they couldn't afford it, another got a whole heap. As for me I would have loved to have had a shoot done but being a underpaid strapper (horse attendant) It was equivalent to a months wage so it wasn't even an option.
These photographers made a mint on each customer who could afford it. Had they been a different price bracket I would have been in their market. The fact of the matter is that they were catering to one market, I fitted in another. Two completely different markets.

Unfortunately when you work freelance you are subject to market forces, you need to find your market, nail that market and ignore the markets that have nothing to do with you. On the up side as a freelancer you don't have to accept a job offer if you don't want to do it.

There is a market for them because they exist. It's human nature to be thrifty, and that's all these 'clients' are doing (being thrifty). They have no clue that these amateurs are ruining the trade of photography, nor should they care. It's not their business. They ask, someone responds willing, bingo they're in business. See the weak link? The noob-shooters. I'm not sure how you two/more seem to think cheap/free photography is your self-entitlement, but it's this type of short-sightedness that will sink good photography as sure as it sunk the Titanic.

The gouging-photographer you referenced by the way you relayed his actions in this forum make him sound like a shifty businessman. He is no different from the noob-shooters who undercut and fuck us hard-working shooters with families we support partially with our photography, with the exception that the victim is us not the consumers. Difference is, the consumers have the opportunity to clarify with the shooter by way of a verbal contract with a winess present/in-writing of what hidden fees may be associated. Me, I just fail to get a job then a month later hear from a friend of the referring friend how they were fairly happy with the shooter they hired, if he was only.....better, not just cheaper. And if the images were printable larger than 4x6 and still presentable. And I skip a few meals, etcetera,

And fyi, it's not the cheap gear it's the mentality. My backup is MY old D90. I bought it for $640 in 2010, used. It's still not even half-dead (shutter-life estimated), and I still make a minimum of $300/month using it. As well as use it and leave my D3 at home on freebie-gigs I shoot for family/friends/etc. But my name is not Diana, nor Randy

Thank you for the Biz 101 Ivana, but considering I'm a Psych grad and my half-decade of Biz Management experience is highlighted with managing the largest-volume Ducati Motorcycle Dealership in Canada briefly until I nearly died at work in 2006 I think I'll be alright based on my already being published on 2 continents and my having 1 employee   Perhaps our marketplace works differently over here being that Toronto is a central over here in North America, but I don't honestly believe it differs that drastically.

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
I'm not sure how you two/more seem to think cheap/free photography is your self-entitlement, but it's this type of short-sightedness that will sink good photography as sure as it sunk the Titanic.

Oh for fuck's sake... Being dramatic much?

This is this exact attitude that turns me as well as other off to paying pros sometimes.

Not that I refuse to pay pros all the time, but when I hear one of you whine like that, it makes me want to go to someone else, paid or not.

There are still people who will hire a pro to shoot their wedding, and others who will TF instead. Different priorities for different people. Like I said earlier, a good photographer friend of my husband and I shot our wedding at no cost. He literally refused to take any kind of compensation.

But hey, we must be such cheap bastards who want the decline of pro photography because we couldn't afford spending thousands of dollars on a pro. Right. Like we're going to get into even more debt.

P I X I E wrote:
Oh for fuck's sake... Being dramatic much?

This is this exact attitude that turns me as well as other off to paying pros sometimes.

As the Forum Rules state, please don't attack the poster but rather debate the opinions they've voiced. Being dramatic my ass. I gotta take public transit and last year went to food banks because of fuckheads selling themselves short and their feelings of empowerment from listening to lackadaisical attitudes towards it like yours. When my grandparents need help cuz their medical bills rise, that's dramatic. Stating I have issues with this approach of others in a civil and only mildly colourful manner, that is not. I'm very familiar with your type. The type that cry about the big bad togographer, the meanie who actually expects to be paid what real photography is worth! The dastardly despicable deceptiveness in his writing everything down in his contract - knowing ADD/ADHD prevents some from reading every detail! Gahhhhhh............

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Edit: who's whining? Read a little closer. Who says I want models to pay me a dime? Clearly you haven't asked-around about who my team and I are and how we work. I don't charge my co-workers. And my rates for aspiring model-hopefuls and retail clientele is cheap as ass (not exorbitant). And it includes prints, makeup artistry and light hair styling from a trained pro, and the client is holding prints from the session within weeks of the session guaranteed - IN-WRITING. That's how a professional operates. He/she/they sell themselves by providing a superior service and a superior product, NOT by low-balling the others and forcing us to lose business while shitheads with their T2i's make a quick buck to go score an 8-ball of rock.

Dramatic? Sure. Another avenue I explore for financial remuneration is acting

Edit #2 Despite heated conversations in the fora that take place at times and I'm involved in, I never hold any ill feelings towards posters who voice opposing opinions to mine.

All Yours Photography wrote:

So the noob shooter should give his time to a commercial studio to be sent out to do the same thing for a price as he was going to do for "free"??

If he is going to give his time to a studio, he should be going out as a second shooter, not gambling the couple's memories while the studio still makes a buck

No. I don't think that's what he mean. If you apprentice through a commercial studio, the studio will be there shooting the main photos, with the apprentice following in the other guy's footsteps, not always shooting, but assisting. Learning where to be, and what is required.

The really good wedding photographers not only get the great shots, but also know how to do it in such a way as not to interfere with the event; be inconspicuous. It's a photographer's version of having a doctor's good bedside manner.

There is more to event photography than taking a photo. It's being non-intrusive to the event.

P I X I E wrote:

Or, y'know, if the official photographer is a very good friend of yours, chances are they won't flake.

That's the difference though. You asked a good friend who happened to be a talented photographer, and he helped you out.

Most of the TF big event castings I see are folks typing out a list of demands to total strangers, and some not offering anything in return.

Paige Morgan wrote:

That's the difference though. You asked a good friend who happened to be a talented photographer, and he helped you out.

Most of the TF big event castings I see are folks typing out a list of demands to total strangers, and some not offering anything in return.

I would never ask for TF from a total stranger ever for these things. I'm lucky I have photographer friends.

But trust me, I had people tell me that my husband and I were cheap bastards because we didn't hire a pro. Why pay a stranger just because he has the pro label when I have friends (photographers) who offer to shoot for no fee?

P I X I E wrote:

I would never ask for TF from a total stranger ever for these things. I'm lucky I have photographer friends.

But trust me, I had people tell me that my husband and I were cheap bastards because we didn't hire a pro. Why pay a stranger just because he has the pro label when I have friends (photographers) who offer to shoot for no fee?

Pixie, you're missing the point of what Paige said. If you're friends with photographers, it not a model-photograher relationship. It's a friend-friend relationship and with that comes the perks and favors that friends do for each other.

As doctor's would never expect payment for a consultation with their mothers, friends will do each other a solid by helping move furniture, or shoot.

I posted this thread about casting calls here on MM--- strangers asking strangers.

Francisco Castro wrote:
Is is just me, or is anyone else annoyed whenever they see a casting call for a TF shoot for weddings/baptisms/Bar Mitzvahs/Quincinieras/etc.? I appreciate the fact that some people's budget is really tight, but I think that's abusing the system.

It's an insane amount of work to shoot events like weddings, and I think it's just tacky not to even offer a modicum amount.

I know some people will say, "It's their time. If they want to shoot a wedding TF then that's their business.". And I agree. It's their time and effort. Let them deal with it.

But what do you think? Asking a wedding be shot TF--- tacky, or not-tacky?

Completely ridiculous. When I was married, I was on a really tight budget. I hired 2 of my students to do the shoot. Well I payed them a second shooters wage.Ultimately I payed the price in the long run but, I never forgot my wedding date...It is burned on every negative from one student. and the other from an early pro 4mp camera, well lets' just say...If I need to email a 780p wide wedding shot. I have 300 or so.

Just cough up the money and hire a pro.
Oh, by the way I don't shoot weddings. I did shoot my sisters in 1979. To this day when I see the shots I don't believe I took them. They really came out good.
And because of them I will never shoot a wedding indoors.

JessieLeigh wrote:
If you are a photographer that does work worth paying for, a photographer that shoots for people THAT HAVE NO MONEY is not impacting you in any way. If that photographer didn't take the project on a TF basis, the people with no money would still HAVE NO MONEY.

I didn't pay for a professional photographer at my wedding. Nor did I shell out thousands for a dress. Nor did we rent a facility for a fancy ceremony and reception. And I just celebrated 10 years of wedding bliss, so a big UP YOUR'S to the jackass that suggested that people that don't pay the big bucks for a traditional wedding don't really care about it lasting

I wish sometimes I were a Mod.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
their undercutting

You're linking to a definition while using the wrong "their?" Lol.

P I X I E wrote:

Oh for fuck's sake... Being dramatic much?

This is this exact attitude that turns me as well as other off to paying pros sometimes.

Not that I refuse to pay pros all the time, but when I hear one of you whine like that, it makes me want to go to someone else, paid or not.

There are still people who will hire a pro to shoot their wedding, and others who will TF instead. Different priorities for different people. Like I said earlier, a good photographer friend of my husband and I shot our wedding at no cost. He literally refused to take any kind of compensation.

But hey, we must be such cheap bastards who want the decline of pro photography because we couldn't afford spending thousands of dollars on a pro. Right. Like we're going to get into even more debt.

you keep calling reasonable explanations whining. So if I have a friend at the club you are doing burlesque in, and they let me in the back door cause i don't want to pay $20 is that ok? Most likely, yes. It is assumed that a certain number of people are going to be getting in without a cover charge.

Now lets say your payment is a percentage of the door. You find out that management let in over 1/3 of the club without charging a door fee, but that they are not taking responsibility for the door charge percentage they would owe you.

Suddenly it gets murky.

If artists can not afford to continue as artists then there will be no more artists. As I state on my profile, do you like my work? Does it give you pleasure to contemplate? Do you want work like mine to continue to exist in the universe?

This isn't about all the, sometimes very dubious, trade for images that go on between artists on this site. And you know that. You also know there is a difference between putting an ad up on a website and asking a friend to help you out. If you don't know that, you know that now. This thread is about people advertising for a photographer to cover their wedding for free.

I hope you find an eloquence that your arguments are currently lacking. I for one find nothing contributed to this thread, or any other, by someone responding *yawn*

JessieLeigh wrote:
If you are a photographer that does work worth paying for, a photographer that shoots for people THAT HAVE NO MONEY is not impacting you in any way. If that photographer didn't take the project on a TF basis, the people with no money would still HAVE NO MONEY.

I didn't pay for a professional photographer at my wedding. Nor did I shell out thousands for a dress. Nor did we rent a facility for a fancy ceremony and reception. And I just celebrated 10 years of wedding bliss, so a big UP YOUR'S to the jackass that suggested that people that don't pay the big bucks for a traditional wedding don't really care about it lasting

actually it does. It changes the perceived value of a service.

When I am preparing to hire someone I go to craigslist gig and type in the name of what I am hiring, to see what other ads are up looking for the same thing. People see the ads and think that is the going rate for a photographer. When they see dozens of ads for people looking for wedding photographers for 2-3 hundred, they assume that must be the rate being charged.

Every time someone comes onto a message board and says that they got this for x amount of money, the perceived value of the service changes.

And don't event get me started on the number of people who have tried to hire me for an event, at my event rates, only to say later that it is a wedding. Shooting someone's birthday party at a club is not the same as shooting a wedding at a golf course. I charge more for wedding because it is a more specialized skill set, with different equipment needs, and a lot longer post production time. Weddings are exhausting, birthday parties are not.

Francisco Castro wrote:
Is is just me, or is anyone else annoyed whenever they see a casting call for a TF shoot for weddings/baptisms/Bar Mitzvahs/Quincinieras/etc.? I appreciate the fact that some people's budget is really tight, but I think that's abusing the system.

It's an insane amount of work to shoot events like weddings, and I think it's just tacky not to even offer a modicum amount.

I know some people will say, "It's their time. If they want to shoot a wedding TF then that's their business.". And I agree. It's their time and effort. Let them deal with it.

But what do you think? Asking a wedding be shot TF--- tacky, or not-tacky?

Insane.

I've seen some hideous photos from cheap photographers (not free ones though) and, as always, the couple got what they paid for.

Not something I'd scrimp on personally.

P I X I E wrote:

I would never ask for TF from a total stranger ever for these things. I'm lucky I have photographer friends.

But trust me, I had people tell me that my husband and I were cheap bastards because we didn't hire a pro. Why pay a stranger just because he has the pro label when I have friends (photographers) who offer to shoot for no fee?

It's fine if your friends were happy to do this for you. But as a photographer, I find it really frustrating when I attend a friend's wedding and they asked why I didn't bring my camera. Friends always want freebies from their friends in the creative field but I'll bet it rarely works both ways.

JessieLeigh wrote:
I find myself far more annoyed with people that make threads about how other people choose to act, particularly when it doesn't impact the person making the thread at ALL.

How does this thread impact you at all?

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

You're linking to a definition while using the wrong "their?" Lol.

Guilty as charged. Guess you had less to say about what my message was than you had to say about the *way I said it? Cool. Thanks for helping by endorsing my irrefutable point

Francisco Castro wrote:
As doctor's would never expect payment for a consultation with their mothers, friends will do each other a solid by helping move furniture, or shoot.

Now *there's a term I haven't heard in a while! It's funny, that after all these years of behaving coming across a term like this brings a flood of old memories rushing back in! 

All Yours Photography wrote:
So the noob shooter should give his time to a commercial studio to be sent out to do the same thing for a price as he was going to do for "free"??

If he is going to give his time to a studio, he should be going out as a second shooter, not gambling the couple's memories while the studio still makes a buck

Francisco Castro wrote:
No. I don't think that's what he mean. If you apprentice through a commercial studio, the studio will be there shooting the main photos, with the apprentice following in the other guy's footsteps, not always shooting, but assisting. Learning where to be, and what is required.

The really good wedding photographers not only get the great shots, but also know how to do it in such a way as not to interfere with the event; be inconspicuous. It's a photographer's version of having a doctor's good bedside manner.

There is more to event photography than taking a photo. It's being non-intrusive to the event.

+1

You nailed it like they nailed Jeebuz to the cross, man! Shooting events when in crazy environmental conditions and needing to think on-the-fly and react when shit goes south or simply veers hard to the west, now that's an art form man. Getting in, getting all the life you can in some images, and getting out before anyone really notices you're there much. Now that's some trick shit!

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site)