Quality OR Quantity

weddingsbywayne

Hi There,
New to this. I just wanted to find out if any photographers (weddings) where having more success with lower prices on the smug galleries in which you may sell more images but receive less moneys... OR keep the price up there in which you would sell less to guests and families that view them but receive higher moneys per image...

I seem to sell less by charging a higher price.... just wondering what the most profitable way to go is???

Thanks
Wayne

cdonovan

By reducing the prices you reduce the value that you place on your work...a wise wise photographer once told me....photog x sells 10 images at 10$ a piece, or you sell 2 images at $50/piece You're making the same amount of money...but doing half the work.....

Low balling your prices hurts everyone, your competition, colleagues, and devalues what you do as a whole. There is nothing wrong with having a sale every now and again, however I highly recommend doing some research of other locals, checking their prices, and use that standard for your pricing as well.

ChatKat

PAper vs service
If you are in the business of selling paper, keep the price low. If you are in the business of including your vision and talent, price your work for what "you" are worth.

cdonovan wrote:

By reducing the prices you reduce the value that you place on your work...a wise wise photographer once told me....photog x sells 10 images at 10$ a piece, or you sell 2 images at $50/piece You're making the same amount of money...but doing half the work.....

Low balling your prices hurts everyone, your competition, colleagues, and devalues what you do as a whole. There is nothing wrong with having a sale every now and again, however I highly recommend doing some research of other locals, checking their prices, and use that standard for your pricing as well.

FedererPhoto

They aren't buying a 'print of a pic' ...*

They are buying a piece of artwork to hang in their home.

You need to understand this just as much as they do.




*unless of course, if they are... in which case, direct them to wherever you want. What are you selling 'pics' or 'artwork'?

angevin1

weddingsbywayne wrote:

Hi There,
New to this. I just wanted to find out if any photographers (weddings) where having more success with lower prices on the smug galleries in which you may sell more images but receive less moneys... OR keep the price up there in which you would sell less to guests and families that view them but receive higher moneys per image...

I seem to sell less by charging a higher price.... just wondering what the most profitable way to go is???

Thanks
Wayne

You will sell less the higher you go!

If you need more money for your work, then you may want to get it on the front end versus the back end.

Looking over your Website, there ain't a bad image on it..these are superb and should command top dollar from your clients.

nice work~~tom

jeffreaux2

My rates are set so that if I sell not a single print from a sitting, wedding, or other event my time has been well paid. I might look at it differently if I shot fine art or stock, but I look at portrait and event photography more as a service than a product. There is nothing worse than feeling as though your effort is not appreciated in sales. I choose to charge for my effort up front, and keep print pricing realatively low.

Cygnus Studios

jeffreaux2 wrote:

My rates are set so that if I sell not a single print from a sitting, wedding, or other event my time has been well paid. I might look at it differently if I shot fine art or stock, but I look at portrait and event photography more as a service than a product. There is nothing worse than feeling as though your effort is not appreciated in sales. I choose to charge for my effort up front, and keep print pricing realatively low.

I can understand giving a small discount to family/friends for "extra" prints beyond those in the original agreement.

Swartzy

jeffreaux2 wrote:

My rates are set so that if I sell not a single print from a sitting, wedding, or other event my time has been well paid. I might look at it differently if I shot fine art or stock, but I look at portrait and event photography more as a service than a product. There is nothing worse than feeling as though your effort is not appreciated in sales. I choose to charge for my effort up front, and keep print pricing realatively low.

completely. This is exactly how I approach the business as well. It is a service. Now granted, the pricing structure of the prints (the ones they don't receive with a package) is a bonus but they aren't free. It took time to process them, upload them and the costs to store them on redundant drives. You learn quick that making 10 cents an hour isn't such a good deal.

cj99si

Quality.

Shima

jeffreaux2 wrote:

My rates are set so that if I sell not a single print from a sitting, wedding, or other event my time has been well paid. I might look at it differently if I shot fine art or stock, but I look at portrait and event photography more as a service than a product. There is nothing worse than feeling as though your effort is not appreciated in sales. I choose to charge for my effort up front, and keep print pricing realatively low.

Add another +1 to that. I make sure my time is compensated. I don't go to a wedding expecting to make the money for my time in the prints later. When people order prints it's a nice bonus for me. That being said, I was able to upgrade all my bodies and lenses this year with my gig money. My print sales, will pay for my year of business insurance... I only *just* qualified this past quarter for my first prints automatic payout from smugmug. I look at it like surprise here's some extra change later money. I make sure I'm covered from the shoots as a result.

jeffreaux2

The bonus with having the print pricing realatively inexpensive is that the result will be a larger print order. That means more paper in people's hands.....more eyes viewing....and that is probably how I will come to be introduced to my next client.

I have lost some work on account of pricing too high. So what.

I find that "most" of my clients will ....in general...spend about the same amout give or take $100 from one client to the next on prints. I prefer to circulate the prints....but....like I said....charge for my time and effort.

sherijohnson

jeffreaux2 wrote:

The bonus with having the print pricing realatively inexpensive is that the result will be a larger print order. That means more paper in people's hands.....more eyes viewing....and that is probably how I will come to be introduced to my next client.

I have lost some work on account of pricing too high. So what.

I find that "most" of my clients will ....in general...spend about the same amout give or take $100 from one client to the next on prints. I prefer to circulate the prints....but....like I said....charge for my time and effort.

this seems like a good philosophy.

Blurmore

I think this whole "art", "value" whatever argument is bullcrap. The old business model is ALMOST dead (thank God), that being you charge them up front and on the back. I include limited license to reprint in my packages, so I keep my print prices low as a service to the couple. If the family and friends REALLY want to annoy the client, they can get images from them, or they can order them from me. I make about 200 dollars in print sales per wedding from family and friends, I've already made my money from shooting the wedding, I'm not holding their memories hostage. I'm good, I'm worth it, I sell myself to the client, I have no interest in marking up their memories and playing on their emotions for a big markup. The cat is out of the bag, everyone KNOWS how much quality prints cost, make your money up front and don't kill people on the back end. Thats my philosphy, and that is how I sell myself, I'm their to make the pictures THEY want with MY vision, not to make pictures I think I can sell them at a huge markup. Let the flames begin, but I worked for and under the old model for a long time, and I can't wait to see this practice die.

cj99si

Blurmore wrote:

I think this whole "art", "value" whatever argument is bullcrap. The old business model is ALMOST dead (thank God), that being you charge them up front and on the back. I include limited license to reprint in my packages, so I keep my print prices low as a service to the couple. If the family and friends REALLY want to annoy the client, they can get images from them, or they can order them from me. I make about 200 dollars in print sales per wedding from family and friends, I've already made my money from shooting the wedding, I'm not holding their memories hostage. I'm good, I'm worth it, I sell myself to the client, I have no interest in marking up their memories and playing on their emotions for a big markup. The cat is out of the bag, everyone KNOWS how much quality prints cost, make your money up front and don't kill people on the back end. Thats my philosphy, and that is how I sell myself, I'm their to make the pictures THEY want with MY vision, not to make pictures I think I can sell them at a huge markup. Let the flames begin, but I worked for and under the old model for a long time, and I can't wait to see this practice die.

Im definitely with you on this. I dont count on making much of anything after the fact.

Sam

Wayne,

Great images!

I couldn't see any pricing on your site, so I can't comment on that, but I did notice you are providing a CD with high rez images.

While I think this is certainly becoming the standard, it will reduce the print sales substantially.

Sam

GP Images

Blurmore wrote:

I think this whole "art", "value" whatever argument is bullcrap. The old business model is ALMOST dead (thank God), that being you charge them up front and on the back. I include limited license to reprint in my packages, so I keep my print prices low as a service to the couple. If the family and friends REALLY want to annoy the client, they can get images from them, or they can order them from me. I make about 200 dollars in print sales per wedding from family and friends, I've already made my money from shooting the wedding, I'm not holding their memories hostage. I'm good, I'm worth it, I sell myself to the client, I have no interest in marking up their memories and playing on their emotions for a big markup. The cat is out of the bag, everyone KNOWS how much quality prints cost, make your money up front and don't kill people on the back end. Thats my philosphy, and that is how I sell myself, I'm their to make the pictures THEY want with MY vision, not to make pictures I think I can sell them at a huge markup. Let the flames begin, but I worked for and under the old model for a long time, and I can't wait to see this practice
die.

thumb
I totally agree.

FedererPhoto

Blurmore wrote:

I think this whole "art", "value" whatever argument is bullcrap.

I don't. Compare a well-retouched 24x36 gallery wrap to out-of-the-camera 4x6 printed at walmart. Or more fair, compare a 20x30 retouched print from WHCC with the same thing OOC at target.

Which is a better value? The 19 cent piece of junk or the 1000 dollar work of art? The 25 dollar print or the 400 dollar print?

There are 2 thoughts on this - walmart or tiffanys. You can focus on quality/art and charge accordingly... or you can focus on price and give the best product you can at that price. No harm in doing the walmart method, but understand that you can't have it both ways...

The old business model is ALMOST dead (thank God),

Let the flames begin, but I worked for and under the old model for a long time, and I can't wait to see this practice die.

Why would you 'thank God' that the old model goes away? The old model allowed people to get coverage and their prints at a cheaper price than they would otherwise.
I've actually got quite a few clients that wish I used the old model (I do not by default) ... they want me to 'cover' 8 hours, but really only want the best 5-10 images to hang throughout their home. Maybe another 20 to make a quick flip album or for their family/friends. With the old model, they could have had that and ordered their few prints and have gotten 'in-and-out' for under 1000 dollars and my work put-in would have been small enough that I'd be okay with that 1000.

With the new model, because I collect my fee 'up front' and plan to give them X images which will take me Y time, I've got to charge them 4k+. If they don't have the money, they have to choose someone cheaper (with the implication being they are less skilled) and still end up getting 1200 images, 1000 of which are trash and only 10 which they 'want' (becuase, remember, they only want a few images). Not only did the client not work with the photographer they wanted (me) but they also didn't get the product they wanted AND they got a bunch of stuff they didn't want.

I've had clients who said they only wanted 3 prints and nothing else. I worked with them and shot a long day (with a focus on shots that would make great large prints), proofed them and had them decide what they wanted. They ended up getting a lot more, but it was still cheaper for them than if they had simply hired me with my 'normal' model for the entire day and had 600 retouched images (sans prints... which, remember, is still what many people want)

Both models have their place... neither is 'better' than the other. In fact, I would say that for a beginner, the 'old' model has less 'risk' for the couple and could be considered a selling point. ("I'll shoot all day, you pay me for the images you like... if I suck, I end up being really really cheap")

I think the true 'problem' is being locked into either model... be open to what best serves your client while still giving you the profit margins you need. You're clients will be happier and, in turn, you'll be more successful.

jonh68

I don't. Compare a well-retouched 24x36 gallery wrap to out-of-the-camera 4x6 printed at walmart. Or more fair, compare a 20x30 retouched print from WHCC with the same thing OOC at target.

That is a separate issue. If the client wants a super duper version that's perfect, they are going to pay me the time to make it super duper. Getting hired to do ONE wall sized pictures is very different than producing pictures to document a wedding or an event. If they decide one of the pictures warrants special treatment for a wall sized pic, then they are going to pay me for that time to edit it.

I also don't see a real difference in shooting all day for possible 3 pictures and shooting all day for 600 pictures sans editing time. Your time is still the same and I don't see the benefits to yourself if they get a better price unless it cuts down on post processing because only a select few will be selected for printing. You still have to go through all the shots and do some sort of editing just to see if the pics could be improved. I can see if it's an hour long session, but all day is all day.

If there were friends, family who wanted be take special pics at the event, during down times of course, they will get a special gallery WITH increased pricing if they want those prints. You can also have separate galleries for the ones paying for the services and they get a at cost gallery and another one can be made for friends and guests which have increased costs.

geospatial_junkie

I don't count on any print sales. I prefer to go all digital and only offer slideshows. If someone inquires about albums and prints, great... if not... then I get my money up front. Everything else is just gravy!

FedererPhoto

jonh68 wrote:

That is a separate issue. If the client wants a super duper version that's perfect, they are going to pay me the time to make it super duper. Getting hired to do ONE wall sized pictures is very different than producing pictures to document a wedding or an event. If they decide one of the pictures warrants special treatment for a wall sized pic, then they are going to pay me for that time to edit it.

It's not a separate issue... it speaks to the 'art & quality' vs 'price'. Sure, you get a workable image both ways, but one is 'art' the other is just a 'pic'. Which was the original topic here.

I also don't see a real difference in shooting all day for possible 3 pictures and shooting all day for 600 pictures sans editing time. Your time is still the same and I don't see the benefits to yourself if they get a better price unless it cuts down on post processing because only a select few will be selected for printing. You still have to go through all the shots and do some sort of editing just to see if the pics could be improved. I can see if it's an hour long session, but all day is all day.

Did you just saying "it's all the same, other than the stuff that's different"? Obviously that's true, but the stuff you are 'not counting' is HUGE.
An average wedding takes me 100 hours, with meeting, website creation, processing, travel, shooting, etc. The actually day-of is really not a huge piece. If we have a deal ahead of time that I'm just going to batch them in LR and meet in person for 2-3 hours, no website, etc... I can cut my amount of total hours invested by upwards of 50-75% (depending, of course, on specifics).
How does it benefit? It benefits me in that I get the booking and still make a profit (about as much per hour as I normally do) and get a chance to really experiment (because they've already agreed they don't care for hundreds of the 'must have' shots like speeches, etc) and make some cool images(take a risk and shoot from the rafters, or try to get permission to shoot them leaving the church from the roof, or whatever). It benefits them in that they get exactly what they wanted and don't pay for stuff they don't want (though I would disagree they 'don't want' it... but sometimes people have their minds set).

Obviously I like the 'pay upfront' model best, it results in the bigger assured bookings, doesn't require any 'sales' from me afterwards, and is simply 'easier' on the ego - it simplifies everything for me. I even use that even with the 'shoot for a print' style - pay me X, 50% of which is a 'print credit' or something...
But to claim that it's the 'only way' to do things or that it's always the best for the client is simply wrong...

Blurmore

One last comment about "art" and what I consider "the old model". The old model, the one I worked for, for too long goes something like this. A studio (consisting of an owner/photographer, subcontractors, and assistants) charges a fee of between 4000 and 7000 dollars to cover a wedding be it 8-12 hours. The primary photographer receives between 500-1500, the assistants/seconds make crap 150-300 dollars. Then the studio sells the couple PRINTS and NEVER negatives, or printable full res photos at 20-25 dollars/ 8x10, 10-15 dollars/ 5x7 and accordingly. Canvas prints or other large retouches going for 300 dollars and up. Designed albums as an add-on between 1000-2000 dollars. Traditional albums starting at 500.

So far as "art" goes. Social photography can embody artistic principles, it can use great composition and technique to achieve a pleasing aesthetic but it is NOT "art". The whole premise of social photography is to use your vision to tell someone else's story in the third person, which is by nature not personal enough to qualify as "art". In my life I have worked for 2 master photographers, the absolute pinnacle of the craft, neither would consider their wedding work "art". The majority of their portrait work as well I doubt they would consider "art". It isn't "art" because someone decides to hang it on their wall.

mercphoto

Not that I know much of the history of the photography business, but what I consider the "old" model is best summed up in two things that are phasing out. One is the never selling of negatives, which in the digital day is going to be harder and harder to justify. There are too many uses for photographs these days than simply putting them on paper. And two is the print mark-up.

I think people these days are willing to compensate for the task of capturing the images and in the post-processing. But less and less is seen any value-add to reprints.

zoomer

I make ALL my money in the wedding package the couple buys.
Doesn't matter to me if I sell any extra prints.
I sell a few from the couples gallery that I post on Smugmug, but don't care about that. All of my print prices are very reasonable, again that is not where I make my money.

FedererPhoto

This really is 2 topics, but they are certainly intertwined... 'art' and your 'business model' ...

Blurmore wrote:

One last comment about "art" and what I consider "the old model". The old model, the one I worked for, for too long goes something like this. A studio (consisting of an owner/photographer, subcontractors, and assistants) charges a fee of between 4000 and 7000 dollars to cover a wedding be it 8-12 hours. The primary photographer receives between 500-1500, the assistants/seconds make crap 150-300 dollars. Then the studio sells the couple PRINTS and NEVER negatives, or printable full res photos at 20-25 dollars/ 8x10, 10-15 dollars/ 5x7 and accordingly. Canvas prints or other large retouches going for 300 dollars and up. Designed albums as an add-on between 1000-2000 dollars. Traditional albums starting at 500.

1st) It sounds like your problem with the 'old model' has nothing to do with the model itself - it has to do with you shooting for (what sounds like) a wedding mill and/or as a subcontractor for a greedy studio. You shooting a 7k wedding and only brining in 1.5k -- shoot, I'd be chomping at the bit to get out of that 'model' too.

2nd) 20-25 for a 8x10 is hardly overpriced. Figure it takes you an hour of work to retouch it, go back and forth with the client about the crop, make the print, ship, etc. Not to mention 'setup' costs like getting your profiles matched, etc. You end up working for 10 dollars an hour at that rate.
1000 dollars to design an album is also not overpriced - say it takes you 1 hour a page (2-side), you do a 24 spread album, include a few more hours tweaking and going back and forth with the client about final layout, covers, pages, and then getting it to the printer... you've easily dropped 30-40 hours into a well-done album. You've just worked for ~25 an hour - again ignoring training, setup costs, profiling, etc.
300 for a canvas is downright cheap once you factor in all time and costs.

I make my 'profit' on the front-end and don't rely on print sales to put food on my table... but I don't give away my work for free either. I factor in the true cost of me creating the product, pay myself a reasonable hourly rate, and price accordingly.
If you are uploading to smugmug and calling it a day, sure, a 30 dollar 8x10 is outrageous. If you are taking their delivered JPGs and having them printed as 4x6's and dropped into sleeves in a 3-ring binder... 500 is rediculous. But if you are treating your work as art and creating the highest quality you possibly can - a 30 dollar 8x10 is actually pretty cheap and 1000 for design is pretty much inline.

So far as "art" goes. Social photography can embody artistic principles, it can use great composition and technique to achieve a pleasing aesthetic but it is NOT "art".

I disagree. Art is in the eye of the viewer/creator. I'd certainly call plenty of 'candid' or 'social' photographs 'art' and I'm certain many others would as well. Certianly 'posed' photography is 'art' - especially the more informal/creative stuff. Is it trying to make an impact on my long held beliefs, change my view of the world, make a statement? No... but that doesn't mean it's not 'art'. Much of Ansel's work does nothing for me other than 'look pretty' - does that mean he didn't create art?
Apparently we have different definitions of art, and this is likely not the place to have that argument. Either way...

I believe the fact you (not YOU you, the proverbial 'You'... I'm not trying an ad-hom here, I'm talking philisophical and theoretical) don't envision your work as art is perhaps one the reasons you (again, not YOU) might not feel your 8x10's should be worth a reasonable amount, are 'okay' with Target printing your untouched files, and are cool with 'just shooting' and then handing your files over to a contracting company.

Target/Smugmug/KodakEasyShare/WalMart/etc ... great place to get 'pix' printed for 20 cents.* Would you bring a fine-art (however you care to define that) photograph there?
I believe wedding photographs can rise to the level of fine art. Either as an individual image (sometimes) or as a part of a greater whole. (For example: I've never taken a shot of 'the kiss' that I feel would in any way count as 'fine art'... but as part of a great visual 'story')

It's about perception - YOUR perception of YOUR work (and the type of work/heart you put into it)... which will then filter to your cleints perception of your work.
You can take two identical images and identical clients. One client has been given a "Target/Walmart" perception* and one has been given a "Tiffanys" perception.
'Sell' the image for 3 bucks and the first version of the client will feel like you took them for a bath ("Hey, that only costs 19 cents to make at Costco!") and sell one to the second version of the client, with a different perception of your work, for 200 dollars and they won't even flinch.

If you are cool with the client equating you and you're work to Target/WalMart... that's fine, and works very well, and certainly feeds thousands and thousands of photographers and their families.
Others, however, are not cool with that equation.


*This is in no way meant as a condemnation of photographers that use this 'model'.
I believe that now-a-days there are really 2 'models' in addition to the 'profit before' or 'profit after'. And I believe these two models are what the original post was questioning: Quality vs Quantity ... do you get hired because you shoot a wedding for 1500 (effectively relagating 'quality'to secondary status), or do you get hired because you produce stunning work (effectively saying 'price' is of little importance).
I believe BOTH of those models work... and, in fact, I think the 'quantity' model is actually probably easier and more profitable for the majority of people.

Blurmore

FedererPhoto wrote:

This really is 2 topics, but they are certainly intertwined... 'art' and your 'business model' ...



1st) It sounds like your problem with the 'old model' has nothing to do with the model itself - it has to do with you shooting for (what sounds like) a wedding mill and/or as a subcontractor for a greedy studio. You shooting a 7k wedding and only brining in 1.5k -- shoot, I'd be chomping at the bit to get out of that 'model' too.

2nd) 20-25 for a 8x10 is hardly overpriced. Figure it takes you an hour of work to retouch it, go back and forth with the client about the crop, make the print, ship, etc. Not to mention 'setup' costs like getting your profiles matched, etc. You end up working for 10 dollars an hour at that rate.
1000 dollars to design an album is also not overpriced - say it takes you 1 hour a page (2-side), you do a 24 spread album, include a few more hours tweaking and going back and forth with the client about final layout, covers, pages, and then getting it to the printer... you've easily dropped 30-40 hours into a well-done album. You've just worked for ~25 an hour - again ignoring training, setup costs, profiling, etc.
300 for a canvas is downright cheap once you factor in all time and costs.

I make my 'profit' on the front-end and don't rely on print sales to put food on my table... but I don't give away my work for free either. I factor in the true cost of me creating the product, pay myself a reasonable hourly rate, and price accordingly.
If you are uploading to smugmug and calling it a day, sure, a 30 dollar 8x10 is outrageous. If you are taking their delivered JPGs and having them printed as 4x6's and dropped into sleeves in a 3-ring binder... 500 is rediculous. But if you are treating your work as art and creating the highest quality you possibly can - a 30 dollar 8x10 is actually pretty cheap and 1000 for design is pretty much inline.




I disagree. Art is in the eye of the viewer/creator. I'd certainly call plenty of 'candid' or 'social' photographs 'art' and I'm certain many others would as well. Certianly 'posed' photography is 'art' - especially the more informal/creative stuff. Is it trying to make an impact on my long held beliefs, change my view of the world, make a statement? No... but that doesn't mean it's not 'art'. Much of Ansel's work does nothing for me other than 'look pretty' - does that mean he didn't create art?
Apparently we have different definitions of art, and this is likely not the place to have that argument. Either way...

I believe the fact you (not YOU you, the proverbial 'You'... I'm not trying an ad-hom here, I'm talking philisophical and theoretical) don't envision your work as art is perhaps one the reasons you (again, not YOU) might not feel your 8x10's should be worth a reasonable amount, are 'okay' with Target printing your untouched files, and are cool with 'just shooting' and then handing your files over to a contracting company.

Target/Smugmug/KodakEasyShare/WalMart/etc ... great place to get 'pix' printed for 20 cents.* Would you bring a fine-art (however you care to define that) photograph there?
I believe wedding photographs can rise to the level of fine art. Either as an individual image (sometimes) or as a part of a greater whole. (For example: I've never taken a shot of 'the kiss' that I feel would in any way count as 'fine art'... but as part of a great visual 'story')

It's about perception - YOUR perception of YOUR work (and the type of work/heart you put into it)... which will then filter to your cleints perception of your work.
You can take two identical images and identical clients. One client has been given a "Target/Walmart" perception* and one has been given a "Tiffanys" perception.
'Sell' the image for 3 bucks and the first version of the client will feel like you took them for a bath ("Hey, that only costs 19 cents to make at Costco!") and sell one to the second version of the client, with a different perception of your work, for 200 dollars and they won't even flinch.

If you are cool with the client equating you and you're work to Target/WalMart... that's fine, and works very well, and certainly feeds thousands and thousands of photographers and their families.
Others, however, are not cool with that equation.


*This is in no way meant as a condemnation of photographers that use this 'model'.
I believe that now-a-days there are really 2 'models' in addition to the 'profit before' or 'profit after'. And I believe these two models are what the original post was questioning: Quality vs Quantity ... do you get hired because you shoot a wedding for 1500 (effectively relagating 'quality'to secondary status), or do you get hired because you produce stunning work (effectively saying 'price' is of little importance).
I believe BOTH of those models work... and, in fact, I think the 'quantity' model is actually probably easier and more profitable for the majority of people.

You have defended adequately the business model you follow, but have not really sealed the door on the "social photography" as "art" argument. If you can sell yourself as "an artist" more power to you, if you can make a client want to book you because they think you are "an artist" great. But that does not make yours or any other photograph made at a wedding "art". "Art" is not in the eye of the beholder, taste and preference in decoration are in they eye of the beholder. I would argue in fact that Adams WHOLE process, Zone, timing, format, meticulous darkroom practice, and voluminous body of work elevates Adams to "artist", but not any single photograph (without knowledge of the process) as "art". "Fine art photography" and "high art" or simply "art" are different things. Much of what is now considered "art" started out as simple decoration, but these things have endured the trials of time, changing attitudes, tastes, and sensibilities, and remained universally beautiful. I do not deny that simple decoration lacks the potential to be art, just that it does not start out that way.

In other words, just because you can sell a super-charged 454 Pinto as a sports car....does not make it a sports car. Not all art holds universal appeal, not everyone will "like" a work of art, but the recognition of its merit and potential must be nearly universal.

mmmatt

In my mind, art is simply something that evokes a change in emotion... be it something you hear, see, taste, feel, smell or whatever. Look up the definition of art and you will see a myriad of answers. I think the definition of art is a personal thing and I think the direction of the discussion here is a little overboard. There is no strict right or wrong!

As for old model vs new model... Biggest bonus of the old model is people got proofs, prints and books because they had no other option. Biggest crime of the new model is that people don't print nearly enough and trust their memories to hard drives and dvds. I want my subjects to have their digital negatives and I want my subjects to bring actual printed proofs to their social gatherings and their office! I want people to have something tangible as well as an archival.

I was recently at a wedding photography conference and of the 10 or so seminars I sat through most all brought op the point of paper... It hit home when I thought of how many wonderful photos are sitting on various hard drives throughout my home and are never printed. 10 years from now I will still have the box of photographs I have been carrying around since I was a kid, but will I have the hard drives? Will I need to convert jpgs to something usable so I can even see them? Will my drives fail or my dvds fade?

Prints and books are the best service you can do for a client IMHO. Like most who have posted here I include a DVD of high res images (and a low res set for myspace/facebook etc), and I make my money on the front end. I charge a minimal markup on my smugmug galleries and encourage people to print there over a retail shop for quality and consistancy reasons. Recently, since people are either having my ART printed at walgreens, or are simply printing minimal prints, I now have packed printing into my packages. EVERYONE gets paper with me now and I believe it is for their own good!

[gump] And that's all I'm gonna say about that [/gump]

Matt