Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Wix.oom! Has anyone used this template for weddings?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: Enough is enough.
Overread
Overread  63746 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2012 - 6:01 PM

Just a thought, but is it actually legal to run that many advertising websites for the same company/business? If each one is promoting the very same company I guess its ok if foolish since it spreads the hits rather thin - but if each one is targeted at advertising a separate company, then surely each of those companies would have to be registered, pay tax etc.... each separately.

I wonder only as I can't think of any companies that try to flood the net with websites to promote their business, barring when they break it into components - so I was just thinking if there isn't some legal reasoning why (as well as the sound points made already about running multiple websites for the same service).

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
8 Feb 2012 - 6:01 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Lucian
Lucian  4531 forum posts
8 Feb 2012 - 6:02 PM

I dont know how many websites i have exactly because i have got my template provider to get rid of a few so i can get rid of the duplicate content problems before i create more. I cant remember all the domains so dont know where on the internet some of my sites are.
My business model is about doing as many weddings as possible and producing what the clients deems to be acceptable work in as fast a time as possible. I dont think being a better photographer would make me more money as i am in an area where high end photographers are taking less and less bookings each year and people consider me to be a quality and cost efficient alternative to booking a more expensive one. I have the benefits of more reprint orders than the more expensive photographer because i am doing more weddings so my business model does not need changes.
The machine gun expession someone here used is about right. Fire as many bullets as possible and some will hit the target. Thats the way i see internet advertising.

Lucian

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2012 - 6:56 PM

"Fire as many bullets as possible and some will hit the target. Thats the way i see internet advertising"

Correction, thats the way you see photography

Lucian
Lucian  4531 forum posts
8 Feb 2012 - 6:57 PM

Come on why are you giving me a hard time. Its not fair.

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2012 - 7:06 PM

Lucian, you come on epz and begin discussions around wedding photography, which in the photographic world is much argued about topic anyway, and with your 'tesco' style approach expect all us local high quality grocers not to say something ?? Well personally I am ready to start throwing cabbages around Wink

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2012 - 7:15 PM

But no worries Lucian theres no bad intent and your work isnt actually that bad for those who have seen it , dont know why you dont post some >???????

Lucian
Lucian  4531 forum posts
8 Feb 2012 - 7:15 PM

I am not tesco style. I bet you shop in tesco. Im going to get a tesco cabbage and throw it at you. its not my fault wedding photography is an argued about topic. I have clients that are very happy with what i provide so theres nothing wrong with the way i work. I am genuinly not a wind up, i think its funny that people think i am.

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2012 - 7:22 PM

Actually I dont !

Tesco is a pretend discount store that is very good at advertising and getting people to think its cheap when it reality its just a load of made up deals and con trick packages ( allegegedly ) , we shop at Aldi. Lidl and Makro to get the best for our money and while we are at it get better quality than tesco too ! and as I said in my other message your work aint that bad and I am sure you have happy clients ...

Your business ethos though 'IS' Tesco style , as many outlets at possible with competitive prices over a wide area to make the most profit , that is what you have said yourself .... ?

scottishphototours

OK, I'm going to be controversial here (I know, not like me...) so stay with me. Forgetting the websites, Lucian has a very valid arguement.

He is aiming at a section of the market that exists and that is VERY affluent - but one that would rather spend money on fancy favours and venues as they don't appreciate or value their photography. This section of the market generally relies on the wedding being paid for by a family member(s) or on a lifelong insurance payout, with little input from themselves. They therefore want to turn it into a "show" wedding - a wedding to make people believe that the family are far more affluent than they maybe actually are. So the things that matter are not things like the pictures, it's the "show" items.

I've see it a lot over the years. I've turned up at a house (of the brides parents generally) and it's located in a rat-infested hole of a council estate, now over-ran with druggies. They've brought their kids up in this environment and on the wedding day they get a horse-drawn carriage to draw up and take them to a 4-star hotel where they have to have the menu translated for them. Then they pour them 50 champagne which most of them have never tasted in their lives - this is the families version of how "affluent" they are; a day more about "show" than "love".

So back to Lucian. He wants to sell to this market, so he's casting his net far and wide - and he'll get them. Why? - because they wouldn't know a good picture if it jumped up and bit them on the nose. They are buying on price alone - back by Tuesday? - I bet you they wouldn't care about this if the price was 50 cheaper.

Now I'm not saying that I'm right and he's wrong, but we're trying to appeal to a different market - the educated against the uneducated. The educated would see a well-exposed and composed, romantic, sharp picture every time - and you can tell these couples straight away. The uneducated see the pictures as being better than what they or their friends take and so are acceptable. The album is a bonus and hey, the price is 650 against me who wants 1200. So Lucian gets the deal.

But here comes the controversey.... why should people be told (as they are by magazines and websites all the time) that the BEST photographer is an MPA member, with an LMPA (at least...) and a table full of sample albums that has a selection of the following photoshopped results - ultra-dark vignettes, a page of sepia tone, an HDR page, an ultra-wide page (portrait of course), several images with VERY shallow depth of field and several poses where the bride and groom look moodily at the floor?? - does all of this constitute good wedding photography?? - Lucians clients don't think so - and there are LOTS of them!!...

Where is Lucian's development as a photographer coming from?? - by supplying images to the uneducated or by stepping up his game and appealing to the educated and meeting their demanding eye? The answer is simple, but the business answer is different - and that's the point he is TOTALLY missing here. We all, at some point, have to challenge our inner standards to improve and in doing so we drive our businesses forward.

Lucian is NOT INTERESTED in challenging himself to improve. So he's happy to work 50 weddings a year for his target market to generate an income that, after costs, probably equates to around 6/hour - or just above minimum wage. That's why he, and many like him, are ruining the market... and why he NEVER gets support from the likes of me or pulsar69 when he posts on here - we simply think that our talent is worth more than minimum wage.

Simples. Wink

Andy

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2012 - 10:50 PM

Simples and very well put Andy , I feel somewhat perplexed for Lucian too as I can see potential in his work which is just not followed through in his reasoning.

mikehit
mikehit  46194 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2012 - 11:16 PM

Good explanation, Andy.
As I said earlier in the thread, I sometimes wonder if the fancy photographic effects are more for the photographer's well-intentioned ego than something the client actually wants or expects. I don't mean to be insulting when I say that: a lot of people take a lot of pride in simply doing the best possible job to the limits of their abilities but it is not always needed to get the job done (the old 80:20 rule).

scottishphototours


Quote: Good explanation, Andy.
As I said earlier in the thread, I sometimes wonder if the fancy photographic effects are more for the photographer's well-intentioned ego than something the client actually wants or expects. I don't mean to be insulting when I say that: a lot of people take a lot of pride in simply doing the best possible job to the limits of their abilities but it is not always needed to get the job done (the old 80:20 rule).

I have spoken to umpteen potential clients who neither want, like or need the photoshopped stuff that these organisations see as the "norm" or as "required" to get you to a different level.

I did newspaper work on news and sports where if you were good enough you simply got a call back. That is a successful photographer in my eyes - someone that can produce the goods under pressure and please the client.

What "we" as photographers are instructed to be able to produce is often not what the clients want in my experience.

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2012 - 9:12 AM

Cant say I am personally in agreement with that statement.

When asking my clients for their choice of images for albums i find a wide spread of choice with some clients opting more for people shots and some more artistic shots, I also often receive reviews with statements like ' we love the mix of black and white , selective colour and artistic shots '.

There is a place in the market for the 'un-artistic' photographer and for those it is purely a job , I dont fall into that category and love my work with a passion, the day i start producing standard shots for weddings will be the day i change career.

I think also the term ' photoshopped ' is misunderstood. There is actually a great deal of basic photoshop work goes into wedding photography , cropping , white balance adjustment , cloning etc and even this for me is produced at very different levels by different photographers.

The client base at the higher end of the wedding market know what they are looking for, and an awful lot of them will choose you having seen your work on your website and liking your particular style , if we removed that and start producing technically correct basic wedding photos as suggested then how would any one differentiate or choose a photographer ? The market would simply become saturated with people with umpteen websites and standard samey looking work.

Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 913403 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2012 - 9:15 AM


Quote: I did newspaper work on news and sports where if you were good enough you simply got a call back. That is a successful photographer in my eyes - someone that can produce the goods under pressure and please the client.

Isn't that what Lucien or James does?
We might not agree with his business model or his lack of knowledge.
But if his customers are happy, then he is a successful wedding photographer...... maybe just not in our eyes.

mikehit
mikehit  46194 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
9 Feb 2012 - 9:40 AM


Quote: I also often receive reviews with statements like ' we love the mix of black and white , selective colour and artistic shots...The client base at the higher end of the wedding market know what they are looking for '.

I agree with you. But I wonder what proportion of the wedding market those make up?
Andy's comments as I understand them is that there is vast number of clients out there for whom the photo is nothing more (literally nothing more) than a record of the day. How many comments do we read now about people not wanting a photographer at all? With digital cameras so many people are taking pictures they know they will have half a dozen 'good enough' pictures that they can store on their hard drive. Equally, they will come back from the honeymoon (arguably the most romantic part of the wedding) and grin like cheshire cats over photos taken on their iphone. For them, quality is a low second on their priorities.

Despite my interest in photography, when we got married we took the rational (cynical?) decision that what we wanted was simply a record of the day - a shot of the two of us in the wedding garb, some group shots and probably no more than a dozen 'record shorts'. We made him promise it would be no more than that and he was happy because we were filling a slot that had become available. We fell on our feet and managed to hire an award-winning photographer but that was luck rather than design but as long as he was competent with composition we didn't really mind. I suppose you could call our approach 'the higher end of the base market' Tongue

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: Enough is enough.