 Scott McCord |
Professional license in the future? I was recently told by another pro photographer who is a member of the PPA, that the organization was lobbying for photographers to have to be licensed to work as pro photographers, much like a lawyer has to take the BAR. Has anyone else heard of this? I was told the rationale behind it was because with the onset of digital technology and everybody jumping into the industry, seasoned pros were having to lower their prices too much just to keep business. And also as a result of everybody jumping into the industry, the overall quality of professional portraits were going down. So, to try to remedy this, the PPA wants all professional photographers to take an exam and be licensed to practice professional photography. I have no idea if this is accurate, it was strictly a "through the grapevine" comment. Anybody heard about this? And if so, what are your opinions?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I've not heard of it, but I do have an opinion. I can't see where they could force anyone to obtain a license to practice professional photography. Should we also force painter and sculptors to obtains licenses? nah I can see where obtaining a license such as this would hopefully make a photographer appear more reputable to a customer. But then again, it doesn't take much to pass a test. I think the administration of such a program would be very expensive. Just my 2 cents though...take it for what it's worth! :)
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Haven't heard it. But the ppa isn't an organization that can acredit you for anything. It's more of a referal listing for wedding, family portrait photographers. Some I'm not seeing how much influence they can have over a topic like that. Not even getting into the discussion of if the quality of the product is going down, how can that be the cause of someone who can give quality product to need to lower prices? Isn't the cause coming from the people who are looking for and accepting lower quality? But back to the ppa, that's something that you pass their classes, or get their approval certificates, and then you're able to get into their listings. And although they may be considered a better judge of who or what makes a good photograph then some other similar organizations, having their certificates makes you no more qualified or certified to become a professional than anybody else who can do the same. If NYIP gives you high marks and a job well done at the end of the course, you're pretty much in the same boat.
|
|
|
|
||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
Seems to me if the "pros" are having to lower their prices to compete, the overall quality must be going UP, not down?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Actually Scott, there appears to be some truth to the rumor, particularly in the State of New Jersey (I've got a partner there). The story I got was that the Department of Consumer Affairs is considering a test and license fee (of course) not for all pros but for wedding / event shooters. Apparently, it's a competency issue vs, real or potential injury to the public, based on the number of complaints their consumer affairs people receive about wedding photographers who either don't perform according to their agreements and/or perform so poorly as to produce unusable results. There is also some sort of documented proposed minimum training/photo education requirement too, and the exam would be administered by the State (for a fee of course) and if the applicant is successful, they'd be required to post a performance bond before obtaining their piece of paper. The license fee is minimal and the whole thing is also not so different than requiring that automobile mechanics or repair shops be licensed, also for obvious reasons. I don't know if this is being driven by PPofA or Wedding Photographers Assoc. or whomever else, but it also seems to be catching some notoriety in Illinois where a similar problem seems to exist. Both are basically trade organizations, as Greg said, without acreditation authority, but both are capable of lobying efforts. In terms of protecting the public from incompetent wedding photographers, I think it's actually a good idea because, as we all know, the potential for harm to wedding clients due to the money involved is pretty prevalent. Also the risk is fairly high when combining a photographer who's never done this type of work before with the inability to recreate the event. OTOH, there's no uniform or universal standard of photographic competency. At least none that I'm aware of anyway. PPofA offers various levels of expertise through seminars or workshops, but I don't think those could be applied across the board to other photographers. Remember, insofar as I'm presently aware, it's for wedding/event shooters, not for commercial or other professional photographers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Scott McCord |
Mark, Thanks, guess there's some vailidity to that rumor. For all other responders, just to be clear, I'm not endorsing or speaking out against this notion - just passing on info. I know this can touch a sensitive spot and I'm not accusing anybody of offering low-quality portraits. I'm restating what I was told. However, while I do think that photographers should know their stuff before they agree to take on a wedding (and risk a lawsuit themselves), I would think that it would be hard to implement a "test" that would adequately determine who is and isn't a good photographer. Of course, a test could ask about the technical part, but photography is an art. Any of us here could take a stunning photo in one's eyes, but that same photo may not be so appealing to another. So who's to say what a good photograph comprises (apart from the technical aspects such as shutter speed/aperture). I see photographs all the time that may bend or break a "rule" of photography, but I still like them. And another point. If this idea comes to fruition, it won't completely safeguard clients. Anybody willing to do a little studying, memorization may be able to pass this exam - that doesn't make them a good photographer artisticly. So, who knows. I don't think there's any safe way to legislate an artistic field. And maybe the most obvious question is - why don't potential clients look at a portfolio before booking a wedding photographer? Again, not sure where I stand on this...I'm just bringing these points up for discussion. And remember what Mark pointed out...this appears to only apply to wedding/event photographers - that is if anything ever comes from it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
And maybe the most obvious question is - why don't potential clients look at a portfolio before booking a wedding photographer?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
I'm with Justin and Scott. Not only do they want everything for nothing, but they want everything right now. Even ad agencies these days may call up a photographer and say something like "The client needs great photographer, cheap." My response is usually, "You can have it great, OR you can have it cheap, but you can't have it great AND cheap." I HATE that and unless I know they're really kidding, I refer them to someone else...usually someone I don't hold in high regard. LOL !!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
In the software development industry we take that one further. There are three points to the software development triangle - fast, cheap, high quality. You can have any two, but not all three. :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
There's way more going on here. First, do you know that there are several professional album companies, where if you buy a sample album from them, you get an album, complete with someone elses beautiful work? Are you aware that if you go to almost any bridal show, you will find at least 3 photographers with those same exact albums claiming the work to be theirs? They are complete A-Holes, for sure, however, the brides don't know the difference. Do you realize that there are photographers who hold 'workshops' to show you how to be a wedding photographer? As a part of that, they have beautiful models that pose for you, and you take beautiful pictures of beautiful people in perfectly lit, and controlled situations? You can then use those photos in a portfolio and claim to have shot a wedding. Can you even believe that people do that? Are you also aware of all the photographers that disappear everyday with clients money because they go under and can't climb out of the mess they made? In the meantime, brides have lost the deposit money they put down? I am not at all for licensing. However, I just wanted to illuminate a few of the big problems happening...and it spirals downward from there. I do think that some control is in order. I wouldn't mind taking the test if it is fair to a wedding and event persons and ONLY IF IT IS NOT influenced by the PPA, which for weddings and portraits is a very sad and outdated organization. Lastly I would like to say that brides are not at all educated about what good and bad photography are. They really have no idea. I think many photographers gives brides way too much credit. For those who are pros, take a really excellent photo taken by a master photographer that has all the elements of a perfect photo, then take a snapshot that is just OK, show a bride and ask her to pick. A friend of mine did this as an experiement and found that 9 times out of ten, the bride choses the snapshot. What this illustrates is that brides and grooms are not educated at all about photography, and they likely gravitate toward things that look familiar to them, like crappy snapshots. In order to educate a bride and groom about what good photography is, you have to really show them the difference. They can believe you or go to the $500 and a CD person and take their chances. There is a tremendous amount of downward pressure on prices. It's not that pros can't hang, it's that the bottom is dragging down the industry. Now, it is possible that the little bit extra pros do, is maybe not all that valued to our clients as much as we think it is, and this is what is causing the downward spiral. But, I don't think that's it. I think it's a total lack of communication, and an attempt by many in and out of the industry to make photogrpahy a commodity. Unfortunately, there are many photogrpahers helping to get it there. Those people are just cutting their own throats. It's a matter of short term gains. If you think long term, offering things like images on a CD simply would not be an option. If you sit in a dark room and think about it, that's the stupidest thing anyone ever has done. Yet, it's what all of us are doing in the wedding business. Short-term thinking. So, I've said all this to try to illuminate the subject that while I don't want to see us go to licensing, I might feel that it is necessary at this point until a few people get slapped back into reality about the business of weddings and events. That's my $.01
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Just thought of something. With a type of licensing system, what if it's not intended for qualifying somebody as a good photographer at the beginning. Pass this test, certificate that says he knows what he knows. But what if it's more entended, and implemented, as a means of keeping tabs on who is calling themselves professionals, as in not somebody who's had their camera for 6 months. But somebody that's recognized by the state as a working professional. Which in a way a press pass is not an actual pass that holds any real power. It just indicates you as working for some media. And if the media is allowed in(key word allowed), your press pass or i.d. gets you in. If media isn't allowed in, the press pass/i.d. holds the power of laminated paper. So with a licensing board/system, you have your listing of a working professional, but it also gives you a way to file legitimate complaints, have somebody look into fraud, keep documented who's been frauded, how much, who's in good standing, this person has been licensed for a certain amount of time and no problems. So essentially you have a government version of ebay's buyer/seller ratings, or whatever they call it. So in theory, the licensing would sway the field to more competent photographers, but at the back end. Those that deliver poor quality, stack up the complaints, info made available to the public by the licensing dept. They drop out from lack of clients.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Del Tejo |
Very interesting reading...I only know that with or without licencing at least in my area anyway, there will still be the brides that want the easy way out and the cheapest way out...regardless. I have done so many interviews with brides and they could care less about my quality, they just want to get the most for the cheapest. The last one on their list to talk to is the photographer so they have no more money left from their budget. I have seen this time and time again. I just interviewed a bride and her mom last week. The wedding is at the Willard Hotel in Washignton DC with a Vera Wang gown and they told me the budget was around $2,000 for the wedding photography, because they had no idea how much things were going to cost. The flowers alone I am sure cost them more than my highest package. Even with licensing, if it came to that, people will still want the cheap way out...the showmanship and showing off the wedding to the guests is more important to a bride and her parents then the after memories....the only thing left after all is done is photographs BUT IS THE ONE THING THEY WANT TO PAY THE LEAST FOR.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Debbie, I don't book those people. I hope you don't either. I tell them to go get f'd. I say it nicely, but I have no time to waste on someone who buys Vera Wang, spends $5k on shoes, and then comes to me and wants a deal. She can go f herself. She can hire her Uncle with a Rebel and a 512 memory card for all I care. This is a problem. Many have been able to overcome it by simply having a compelling portfolio. But, by and large, there are alot of people looking for deals and not understanding the cost of photography. What really makes me sad though, is who cares about all that stuff. What really saddens me is that photographers take it. They will reduce their value for the job. And, this further feeds the monster. We should all have a minimum that we will work for. I have an absolute minimum for 30 weddings that pays the bills. And, it's higher than most here charge for full coverage. This is because I have calculated ALL OF MY COSTS, and I know exactly what I can charge per wedding, and be able to pay all my bills. If I only get my minimum, I will live a very crappy life. I will not be happy. I will not be able to take vacation, buy clothes, or reinvest in my business. It is a minimum lifestyle. I wonder if anyone has read the lastest statistics on the real income of a working photographer. Let's say you make $100,000/year. Sounds great right. Well, most photographers, if they are cheap and crafty get to keep 30% of that after expenses and taxes. That might be good money to you, but to make that $100k, took you more than a 40/hr job would. You work day and night, weekends, sick and well. You sacrifice all your free time, you miss all the kids soccer games, all the friends BBQ's on the weekends. You miss everything that everyone else is doing. For less than $30k? You have to be joking me. Well, these are the facts kids. So, go ahead and do your $500 and a CD deals, and sell yourself short. It's short term gains at the expense of your longer-term strategy of building a business that will sustain you over many years.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Sorry about my tone in this thread. I am passionate about the topic. I'll tone it down and try to speak with you rather than at you, in the future. Cheers...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Scott McCord |
Okay, I'll give an opinion now. I have to agree with all of you about brides looking for a deal. While I'm all for budding photographers learning the trade and increasing their skills, I do have to say that, at least in my area, the ignorant eagerness of inexperienced photographers to take on a huge wedding does have repercussions on others in the industry. Jerry said he won't even book those weddings - brides looking for a cheap way out for a wedding photog. I may or I may not depending on the situation. What I'm finding in my area almost across the board, is that brides are calling every photographer in the phone book. Most portrait photographers are not willing to shoot weddings because they have no desire. But there's always a few who have just opened a part-time photography business who are eager to shoot anything. And they quote that $500 and a CD and the bride thinks that's a great deal. Then they call me and ask, "You mean I have to pay this fee and it doesn't even include photos?" I've lost a few potential clients before they've even looked at a portfolio soley because of my fee being higher. Now those, I probably wouldn't book anyway, but it's becoming more common as more photographers start to advertise their services. However, what those brides don't realize is that I may have more than 40 hours work in a wedding before it's all said and done. And I work hard during a wedding. I show up prepared, have shooting locations scouted out, have a good game plan, and work as fastly and smoothly as possible during a hectic day. But the brides just can't resist that low price for some reason. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I might be more impacted by this than those who live in urban areas. I live in a rural area where incomes are not as high. However, I do think that certain photographers may be jumping in over their heads by taking on weddings before being fully prepared - and I do have to say that I think it has the potential to hurt the industry. If you were taking flying lessons in a Cessna, would you apply for a position as an airline pilot? Of course not. Of course you would be turned down because you were not qualified yet. Maybe this is where the licensing comes in. But honestly I don't think implementing licensing would solve the issue. And while I am fully digital, I have to say that I'm convinced that digital is at the root of this. Please don't misread what I'm saying. It's a great medium, but it has two faces. While it allows more people to learn the craft of photography, which is great, I think it's given a crutch to a few to limp in to the photography industry. That being said though, most of the galleries I look at here are amazing and I'm sure that most of us here are completely capable of producing quality wedding photographs. So please don't take this personally. I'm talking about those truly clueless photographers who get a little overambitious and muddy the waters for potential customers. I've heard several times from potential customers concerned about paying my price for an 8x10 when they can go to someone else and get an 8x10 for $5. A $5 8x10 cannot make you any money...and they'll find that out as they become busier. The price of a professional portrait is not based on the paper it's printed on. It's based on the skill and talent of the photographer. I wish potential customers would realize that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I definitely agree that some photographers are jumping into the wedding business with not nearly enough experience or preparation. We paid $1500 for our wedding which was a "friends and family" discount. That included the wedding and a CD. It was a simple outdoor wedding...nothing elaborate. I wasn't happy with the results at all. I don't think they had any experience shooting outdoors. Personally I won't touch a wedding. I know nothing about portraiture and I don't know enough about flash. I know my limitations. Unfortunately, family and friends are very disappointed when I turn them down. They think because I can take a nice landscape, I should be able to do a wedding. Of course, they never want to pay anyway...lol. My husband volunteered me for some family member's wedding on his side of the family. Someone I don't even know. Geez was I ticked! Thankfully they haven't come back to take him up on his offer...yet.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Before I jump back in, I want you guys to know I don't do weddings, don't go near them, don't want to go near them and I admire anyone (well, almost anyone) with the guts and fortitude to deal with everything I know wedding photographers have to deal with. In that respect, the sense I'm getting from everything said here is that like in any profession really, client education is a big part of what needs to be done. I think that those of you who are good enough, and patient enough to spend the time, would not only be doing yourselves a service by educating prospective clients as to what they're buying and what they're For those who may not know, to some extent, the photojournalism or even the commercial photography part of the trade has to do it's share of educating the public and unfortunately other members of the profession as well, including photographers, art-directors, illustrators, designers etc. Several years ago, ASMP (American Society of Media Photogs ASMP.org) put out a really cool booklet called "Photography: Cost and Value". It not only explained generally how we set fees, but also set out some really fundamental stuff on expertise, why it's necessary, matching the photographer to the assignment, and some info on copyright laws. It basically explains that every Aunt Fanny who has a point and shoot can't do what we know how to do. Whether we're photojournalists, wedding photographers, commercial shooters, medical photographers, whatever, we're all in the same boat and have essentially the same issues to deal with, particularly in terms of client education. And for that, I'd urge everyone to take at least a little time (if they're not doing that already) to explain the cost and value of what what we do. Yep, it's blowing your own horn, may be even bragging about not just the value of your equipment and back-up equipment but the fact that you REALLY know how to use it to capture the images necessary for a successful assignment. And....you know how to charge flexibly, but certainly accordingly.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
OK, ok, my THREE cents worth. As far as licensure goes, the competent photographers seem to be in favor of that, as I am. The reason is because it not only protects the public interest but the profession. I wouldn't go to an automotive smog test shop that wasn't licensed, or a physician, or general contractor, or anyone who was required to have a license and wasn't. Having a state dept. of consumer affairs to go to, in my view anyway, is a lot better than squawking to the Better Business Bureau. And while I'm not a great believer in governmental regulation, I tend to favor consumer protectionism because I've seen how hacks injure innocent people in all sorts of areas and not withstanding the profession or business you're in, at some point, we all eventually bear the brunt of it, like being guilty by association. Actually, I think those of us who are professionals should be advocating for this licensure and be first in line to get them. Sort of like patrolling our own turf. Yes? No? Maybe?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Mark, I'm sure you already know this, but the reason the professions you mentioned require "licensing" of some sort is due to the dangerous nature of building a house wrong, for example. No one dies if you screw up the exposure on a shot. Thus, regulation is really not required. But, I am not totally against it. Like I said, as long as the PPA has NOTHING to do with it, I'll probably be for it. I have a friend who does commercial work on the side, and according to him, at least brides have some clue when they start shopping for a photographer. He says that I need to go talk to a business that 'just wants a few shots of this and that for an upcoming catalog'. He says it's a trip, to say the least. But, he just quotes his prices, trys to discuss why an employee with a digital rebel is not likely the good choice, and moves on.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debbie Del Tejo |
Jerry, I declined that client, so NO I did not book that wedding. I am very particular and I don't book everyone I interview even if they want to book with me...I have learned to choose the clients carefully so as to avoid trouble... Your friend thinks that at least brides have some clue....THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH CLUELESS...that is why they want to go the cheap route. They don't have any clue as to what it takes to photograph an entire wedding and the time spent on it. I see it here in the BP forum all the time and we all do...the same questions over and over again..."I was asked by a friend to shoot her wedding, I have a camera but don't know what to do...what setting should I use....what about lighting....blah blah blah"....so tell your friend that brides don't have any clue either.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
I know exactly what your buddy is talking about, Jerry. I do the same thing he does all the time. Where I live, it's usually the restaurant or hotel operator that wants a "couple of quick and dirty shots" for the brochure being used for the tour bus company or the corporate web site. They usually and proudly display the shots so and so's nephew made that make the restaurant look like the Lincoln Tunnel (except not as well lit) and the hotels look like the Amityville Horror. The need to protect the public from the hacks isn't so much any kind of physical danger but a risk of economic harm and huge disappointment because they can't go back to the store and exchange what they received (junk) for something better...a recreated wedding photographed by someone who knew how to use their electronic flash, remembered how to load a film magazine, or didn't accidentally delete the images on that card. But yep. I know exactly what you mean and your buddy.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I'm not for it, but see some theoretical benefits of a derivative that can be used in some way. Smog detectors, or whatever Mark said being licensed. Well that's really part of public health. So yes you see needing the license. And what Jerry said, yes the PPA dosen't need to be involved. Jerry really makes $100,000 a year?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I make more than $100k, but I keep only about 25% of what I make. The rest goes to marketing, taxes, equipment, insurance, etc. So, my income is low compared to my sales. If you only look at my sales, you'd think I was raking it in. But, another quick look at my financials, and you quickly see that my income is kind of sad.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Brides are clueless. But, they are not as clueless as others. That's my point. My buddy says that brides are somewhat unknowledgeable. But, the difference is, brides usually shop around. So, after seeing and talking to 3 to 6 photographers, they get the gist, they get the prices, they get the products, and start formulating opinions about things. This is good. And, I like when I meet brides that have done their homework, because they know what they want, and they have looked at other peoples work. The best brides look at the cheap guys, all the way up to the most expensive, and they get some idea of the differences between them all. I get hired alot by those brides because I have high-end work without the high-end price. The people that shop based on price almost NEVER hire me. The people that are having a lavish affair, and brag about it to me and then ask for a discount piss me off. So, according to my buddy, (because he also shoots weddings), he states that it's worse when you talk to the owner of a business who wants a brochure, or a quick snap for an ad in an upcoming magazine. They can't understand why in the world it would cost $10k for that. So, what my buddy says he does is he asks about the business, and he has a pretty good sense of whether it's small, med, or large. Large business get no deal. They pay or he walks. Medium business have the money, but often don't understand the high fees, and he has to talk to them a bit and show them some work. Small business, he says he gives deals because they have no clue, usually. And, he does make his living doing this, and a couple grand is better than nothing. The discussion mostly revolve around licensing. It's not the shoot fee, it's the usage fees that people don't understand. This is universal, as brides also don't understand usage fees. Only a few times in working with software developers (as grooms) or lawyers (also as grooms) do they "get it" regarding usage and licensing. I get so many brides asking for the copyright. I explain that they get full personal usage rights, but copyright reamins with me. I have not booked some people over this issue. I wish the bridal mags would stop promoting the idea of the bride getting copyrights. It's so not necessary.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||