Finding a photographer

[peggyfromwastate]

Any tips? I know some of you have had pictures taken outside of lame studios-- we haven't had a family picture in about 2.5 years and that was a very formal picture with my parents, my siblings, their SOs and my grandparents. We haven't ever had a picture of just us..,

It's a bit overwhelming to think of where to look-- any suggestions? I agree with the premise that it's worth the $ and the research, I just don't know where to start...

[SuzySunshine]

I would start by googling your city and photographer or family photographer.

The good, current photographers have blogs and websites in my opinion. Find some you like and then go from there.

Or do you have friends you can ask?

[Vanquisher]

Start online and look at portfolios of photographers in your area. I had a friend do ours. I've known her since high school and she happens to live in FL now. I would look for words like "on location", "natural", or "lifestyle". Focus on photographers that have families in their portfolios and don't just focus on weddings.

[L.Jane]

I agree with all above, also you have to figure out what type of photography you like. Do you like natural pictures that are candid, or do you want the posed pictures?

For example... I just googled Family photographers DC and found some.

I also found this best rated by families 2010: http://www.parentsconnect.com/parent...y-photographer

example of candid: http://www.yellowhale.com/

[Ladybug]

Do a custom family photography search for your area. Are you looking to book something outdoors in a few months when things green up and bloom? Studio? Like Heidi said I would look specifically for a family photographer that can connect easily with your kids and bring out their natural expressions and individual personalities. So exciting!! I want to book a family session this summer too. We've never done it. I might have to drive a ways to find someone whose work I really like and want to pay that kind of money for.

[scrub-jay]

For me, the big hangup is the deliverables. We have no interest in prints, we want the high quality digital copies and full rights to use them as we please (we are huge photoshop people in this house). Unfortunately, most photographers make most of their money on print rights and don't offer the high quality digitals (some offer low-quality copies suitable for FB). On the websites, just double check to make sure the portfolio options offered also fit your needs.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

For me, the big hangup is the deliverables. We have no interest in prints, we want the high quality digital copies and full rights to use them as we please (we are huge photoshop people in this house). Unfortunately, most photographers make most of their money on print rights and don't offer the high quality digitals (some offer low-quality copies suitable for FB). On the websites, just double check to make sure the portfolio options offered also fit your needs.

This is what we want too. Our maternity/newborn photographer is all about the prints, birth announcements, etc. You can get the CD of images but it's pretty pricey. Ultimately, I hated all the photographers who offer you the CD as part of the package though - in my (very limited) experience, it seems like the best and most experienced photographers won't do this, the only people that will are the photographers that are just starting out (which makes sense but I didn't like any of their work that I saw). Nonetheless, I think will probably get the CD and skip most of the prints except what we have to get because of our package. I totally understand why they do it that way from a pricing standpoint but I just want my kid's images!

[scrub-jay]

Same here - just double check that those CDs are the high-res images, because when I started calling around... the CDs were only going to include the low-res FB-quality images.

[SoonerTexan]

If you want the CD at a lower cost, you are probably going to have to find someone relatively new. You could ask if they will include a CD with a certain number of prints purchased as the CD doesn't cost them anything except in lost print sales.

[SuzySunshine]

I posted this on fb but it deserves a repost, regardless of who you get or what you get - get it done!

http://fototails.wordpress.com/2012/...re-than-paper/

[Vanquisher]

K, Here's the thing. I hate that photographers "own" images of my family. It feels wrong. Why do you need a portrait of my son or daughter. If I pay you for a sitting and I pay for images, they should be high quality. To me, selling the low quality images feels like such a scam.

So, lets say you go to the orthopedist and he takes an xray of your hand. He finds a small fracture in a place that really needs to be fixed. You ask for a cd of the images so that you can take it to another doctor for a second opinion, but you don't want to pay for more xrays. Does the doctor give you low quality images so that the new doctor can't make a proper diagnosis because he can't blow them up enough to see the fracture? No. He gives you a copy of the images knowing that he may lose your business and not get the surgery done with him but another surgeon.

The $50 you spent for x-rays means that they are yours. The doctor has the legal right to them for your medical record, but the "picture" is of YOU and belongs to YOU. But, you pay someone for a CD of images of a photo session (that you probably paid a sitting fee for), and they have a right to only give you images that are not suitable for print so they can make more money off of you?

It pisses me off.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

K, Here's the thing. I hate that photographers "own" images of my family. It feels wrong. Why do you need a portrait of my son or daughter. If I pay you for a sitting and I pay for images, they should be high quality. To me, selling the low quality images feels like such a scam.

So, lets say you go to the orthopedist and he takes an xray of your hand. He finds a small fracture in a place that really needs to be fixed. You ask for a cd of the images so that you can take it to another doctor for a second opinion, but you don't want to pay for more xrays. Does the doctor give you low quality images so that the new doctor can't make a proper diagnosis because he can't blow them up enough to see the fracture? No. He gives you a copy of the images knowing that he may lose your business and not get the surgery done with him but another surgeon.

The $50 you spent for x-rays means that they are yours. The doctor has the legal right to them for your medical record, but the "picture" is of YOU and belongs to YOU. But, you pay someone for a CD of images of a photo session (that you probably paid a sitting fee for), and they have a right to only give you images that are not suitable for print so they can make more money off of you?

It pisses me off.

I totally see your point, and believe in it to a certain extent as a photographer. A couple of counter-points for thought:
If the photographer "cleans-up" the images using editing software, which print are you entitled to? The original or the one that the photographer's additional time and talent was spent on (beyond the sitting fee)...

If you take those images and have them developed at a crappy place and tell people that so-and-so did your pictures, it is falsely representing the photographer's ability. The loss of revenue would then be in additional clients, not just prints.

As I think about venturing more into the professional photography realm, this gives me some things to ponder!

[SoonerTexan]

In some ways I agree with Heidi and as of right now I plan to alway make hi res images an option for clients no matter how much I charge...though it (hopefully) will not be cheap eventually. However, it is still their copyrighted work and they have the right to sell it as they please. There are a few problems with giving out CDs besides lost print sales:

--clients who do their own edits to the work (which may violate the copyright). Photographers cringe when someone does a bad edit and posts it to Facebook because now that crappy work is no longer distinguishable from their own work. Not saying all edits are crappy, but I'm part of a photographers group on Facebook and I've seen some awful hack jobs. Same goes for anyone who makes low quality prints and displays them, though I really feel that is being picky. It really posses some photographers off though

--Photographers steal each others work like no other. I'm now including low res discs with logos with my hi res discs and asking that clients use only the watermarked images on the Internet, though they can use the hi res images privately online (email, private galleries)

[SoonerTexan]

Cross posted with GRU

[SoonerTexan]

Oh and consider the fact that Facebook "owns" any content you publish and can use it in their ads...it's a real gray area that most photographers just throw their hands up and ignore because it's Facebook and there is no fighting it.