think ive found a tog!

Frankly this a little nit picking and at the same time you seem to indicate that this is in some way devious on my part which is a little unfair as you don't actually work with me and have made quite an assumption here! Moreover couldn't "same calibre" mean anything? Wonder how you measure "calibre"?

Stuart

Thanks Peter: In essence I am following the "loss leader" model and I inform clients of this as they always ask the question "Why"?

Hi Stuart, welcome to hitched!

I think giving away copyright is madness.

My images are my babies, everything I am and everything that in the past has made me an individual is a deciding factor on the photos I take. I'm an artist and to give up rights on the image...casting it aside like that is completely illogical and foolish.

Sure, I'll happily allow couples to make their own prints/albums/copies but to give up ownership over my artwork (which is what copyright is) is a silly thing to do.

If I gave away the copyright I'd have to destroy my backups of the wedding as I'd have no rights to keep them, I could never talk about them in my blog without seeking the couples permission, possibly paying for the priviledge etc...

Stuart, if you follow the loss leader model...on what many of us togs class as our only source of income, what is the profitable product for you?

Why has this become a debate about whether one person's business is right or wrong?!!

Chris Giles you clearly work one way, Stuart works another. Its not affecting you, so why get so het up about it?

I'm not het up about anything but it interests me how someones business works. Just because I operate my business a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way. If anything I'm engaging Stuart to find out more about the way he operates his. As he's good enough to pop onto the forum we're talking shop so to speak.

As we're in the same business and aware of the costs involved I find some of his practices defying logic, and I'm not the only tog who thinks so and because of this I want to know more. If there's an angle I'm missing that may benefit me I'd like to know what it is!

We also have a certain responsibility to the other brides on here. If something seems too good to be true there is a chance it could well be and hammering out the finer points of things may stop people from falling foul of a bad deal. We see far far too many brides go for cheap deals either to have a tog not turn up, not deliver the images, run off never to be heard of again, drop a couple for a better offer etc only to come onto Hitched very upset and seeking help after the damage is done.

If a bit of due diligence now saves heartache later then it's a good thing right?

By reading the thread from the start you'll see why this deal doesn't make sense. The math doesn't add up which is why it interests me as to how it's profitable.

Photographer services up to 12 hours with 2 photographers
- Pre-wedding consultation
- Pre-Wedding and Boudoir Shoot with framed photograph
- No limit of photographs taken on your big day
- All the photographs will be fully retouched
- Copyright free CD/DVD disk with all the photographs
- 16x12 Framed Photograph of your choice
- Storybook Wedding Album

£299

For most of us, that's a weeks worth of work at least with the pre wedding and boudoir shoot.

£299 less tax and a photobox album is about £220 pay the second photogapher assistant money say £100 takes it down to £120

£120 less the cost of two frames from say, ASDA, £100

The tog is doing a whole weeks worth of work for £100?

^From the above I haven't even deducted for travel, insurance and equipment^

The only angle I can see is a big upsell of additional images from the pre wedding and boudoir shoot, but this hasn't been mentioned.

Well you are coming across quite aggressive. You have already told him the way he runs his business is foolish?!

I really don't mind the debate at all: I've posted on my business model and for me it works, but more importantly works for the customer too. Essentially what I am doing is by-passing the expense of marketing. Moreover, it is cost effective. I also have a bit of an altruistic reason if you like. Like most professional photographers I'm a little fed up of losing business to people who have picked up a camera and suddenly become wedding photographers. This is my way of fighting back. You may recall a couple in Wakefield last year booking a professional photographer for £1,500 and he made a glorious mess of the pictures and was eventually sued. Of course it annoys me too that some couples are prepared to spend tons on flowers for the day and yet scrimp on the only thing that really lasts from a wedding.

I know the copyright issue is also a place for debate but once again it's an effective business decision: Not all the weddings I photograph are copyright free though so I think I'm sort of getting the best of both worlds.

And ultimately I'm doing something I love and have a passion for and have done since I got my first camera (a russian Zorki when I was eight). Not everybody that goes to work can say that.

The offer may look too good to be true but sometimes it is also too good to miss!

Regards

Stuart

Thanks! You've opened quite a can of worms here!

Well best of luck Stuart, hope it all goes well for you.

Chris I can understand you questioning Stuarts business model and pricing structure but a common point that you put forward whenever anyone shares how cheap their photographer is, is that their work can't be any good (or words to that effect)

Have you actualy looked at any of Stuarts work? A quick google pulls up plenty of his work and to my untrained eye it looks great. I'm sure any bride taking him up on this offer would have done a little hunting to see if he appears genuine. Price is not always a guarantee of quality.

Well said October. Why Stuart feels he has to justify the way he runs his business to everyone who is doubting him on here is beyond me.

First thing I did was look at his work, I also looked at how long his site had been up and went through all his work before even posting in the thread, I even know he has a Canon 20D, a 40D and a 24-105L lens, possibly more.

I attempted to rationalise the viability of the deal not his body of work or the quality of it.

His creative ability and the pictures he takes are his and his alone. That's personal. However, his business practice is business and once put in an open forum it becomes open to discussion.

So what you meant to say was "How can a photographer that good charge so little?!" ?

Exactly ?

I have never said I was surprised I don't think: No doubt you will tell me if I have! But the important thing is I joined in the debate and the most important thing is people who have looked at my work and have been my clients like my photography. And as for "mug" rates. Am I mug to make a small profit on what is essentially an advertising/marketing tool?

And my terms and conditions are fairly standard

Pours everyone a beer

?

Welcome to Hitched Stuart! Hope this post hasnt put you off! We're generally an approachable bunch ?

Wow - quite the interesting read!

Who did sammi23 go for in the end?

Uncle Bob

no...only joking!!!!!!! No idea in truth.......

btw, for those that don't know, Uncle Bob is the name given by many pros to family members at weddings with decent cameras...Not sure why these days the gender is always male, although it seems to be what many use as an example.