Thomas Kinkade, the self proclaimed "Painter of Light" wasn't the first person to paint like that. Not even close. In fact, he wasn't ever even taken seriously in the art world. Where Kinkade excelled was marketing and branding - some of which bordered on the unethical as time went on (as evidenced by the numerous lawsuits filed against him by his gallery owners). He amassed a huge following of collectors - most of them older ladies - and marketed himself as a highly spiritual, religious artist.
I think an appropriate parallel would be a photographer of mediocre talent that was able to achieve 'rock star' status through marketing and branding (like many of photography's rock stars today).
Mitch W wrote:
Thomas Kinkade, the self proclaimed "Painter of Light" wasn't the first person to paint like that. Not even close. In fact, he wasn't ever even taken seriously in the art world. Where Kinkade excelled was marketing and branding - some of which bordered on the unethical as time went on (as evidenced by the numerous lawsuits filed against him by his gallery owners). He amassed a huge following of collectors - most of them older ladies - and marketed himself as a highly spiritual, religious artist.
I think an appropriate parallel would be a photographer of mediocre talent that was able to achieve 'rock star' status through marketing and branding (like many of photography's rock stars today)....Show more →
Whatever works....talent, skill, business, marketing......those who have "it" get my accolades for being able to maintain that in this economic environment.
Mitch W wrote:
Thomas Kinkade, the self proclaimed "Painter of Light" wasn't the first person to paint like that. Not even close. In fact, he wasn't ever even taken seriously in the art world. Where Kinkade excelled was marketing and branding - some of which bordered on the unethical as time went on (as evidenced by the numerous lawsuits filed against him by his gallery owners). He amassed a huge following of collectors - most of them older ladies - and marketed himself as a highly spiritual, religious artist.
I think an appropriate parallel would be a photographer of mediocre talent that was able to achieve 'rock star' status through marketing and branding (many of photography's rock stars today)....Show more →
+1. Once you're past a very basic level (which pretty much every regular poster on this board passed long ago), it really comes down to how good of a job you do selling yourself, whether through chasing WOM, advertising online or offline, landing on wedding blogs, popping up on vendor lists, hitting up bridal fairs, tweeting and Facebooking, etc. I'm pretty sure photography itself is the least important part of the equation.
marti.g3 wrote:
Whatever works....talent, skill, business, marketing......those who have "it" get my accolades for being able to maintain that in this economic environment.
Except that you mentioned Kinkade solely because you felt he had a unique painting style and talent that can't be taught. I was addressing that, which I strongly disagree with.
marti.g3 - I've seen your other work in the people forum - the boudoirish shoots with the often young, beautiful ladies. Unless YOU are paying THEM, or shooting for free, then I have to believe you do indeed possess whatever "it" is to appeal to a hip, younger client. Maybe you are going after the wrong wedding client? Maybe you should be targeting and appealing to those boudoirish clients (for lack of a better term) and using your studio work as your hook. I'd guess that your ability to make a woman look like you do in photos would be a huge hook to a lot of ladies. That's how Sue Bryce built her hugely successful business - by appealing to a woman's desire to look beautiful. A change of thinking may be in order here.
Mitch W wrote:
Except that you mentioned Kinkade solely because you felt he had a unique painting style and talent that can't be taught. I was addressing that, which I strongly disagree with.
I'm not an art expert. I just used him as an example in terms of what "I" am familiar with. Excuse me if i errored in his talents and originality.
marti.g3 wrote:
I'm not an art expert. I just used him as an example in terms of what "I" am familiar with. Excuse me if i errored in his talents and originality.
That may say it all though. You may be like 90% of the potential wedding clients out there who wouldn't know 'good' photography if they saw it. It may really all just come down to marketing and branding like some here have suggested.
Mitch W wrote:
marti.g3 - I've seen your other work in the people forum - the boudoirish shoots with the often young, beautiful ladies. Unless YOU are paying THEM, or shooting for free, then I have to believe you do indeed possess whatever "it" is to appeal to a hip, younger client. Maybe you are going after the wrong wedding client? Maybe you should be targeting and appealing to those boudoirish clients (for lack of a better term) and using your studio work as your hook. I'd guess that your ability to make a woman look like you do in photos would be a huge hook to a lot of ladies. That's how Sue Bryce built her hugely successful business - by appealing to a woman's desire to look beautiful. A change of thinking may be in order here....Show more →
Mitch, I have used that to book brides. In fact, I have even had brides who saw that work request that for their fiancee. I have one in the works right now. My problem is this.......over the past 6 years, i have amassed so much debt from trying to operate a business model and studio that I purchased that I have so many bills. The previous owner built the business on the "lower priced, higher volume" model.
You would think that in this economy that it would work well. But it hasn't because there are still lower priced, really good photographers out there. How they can shoot for next to nothing still puzzles me. I could never work for that amount. So i've had an uphill struggle all of these years trying to fight that perception of being a lower end wedding photography business. I've even had brides call and say " Oh so and so said to call you because you were very affordable"...........gee thanks.
So my debt is preventing me from prospering. I guess I could just file bankruptcy and start all over. I don't want to, I'm not there yet, but i'll know by the end of this year which direction I will be going.
So once again, to those who are prospering in these tough economic times, I admire them. They are obviously doing something right.
marti.g3 wrote:
Mitch, I have used that to book brides. In fact, I have even had brides who saw that work request that for their fiancee. I have one in the works right now. My problem is this.......over the past 6 years, i have amassed so much debt from trying to operate a business model and studio that I purchased that I have so many bills. The previous owner built the business on the "lower priced, higher volume" model.
You would think that in this economy that it would work well. But it hasn't because there are still lower priced, really good photographers out there. How they can shoot for next to nothing still puzzles me. I could never work for that amount. So i've had an uphill struggle all of these years trying to fight that perception of being a lower end wedding photography business. I've even had brides call and say " Oh so and so said to call you because you were very affordable"...........gee thanks.
So my debt is preventing me from prospering. I guess I could just file bankruptcy and start all over. I don't want to, I'm not there yet, but i'll know by the end of this year which direction I will be going. ...Show more →
I'm guessing quite a few of those 'shoot next to nothing' photographers are weekend warriors. I am not a financial guru so don't really know how to comment on your financial situation, except that I feel for you and hope you find a solution.
But strictly speaking about your photography and branding (which may or may not help at this point), it is clear to me that your skill with the boudoir sessions is what sets you apart from 99.9% of every other wedding photographer out there. If I were in your shoes I would be incorporating that look and style into everything I did. I would find a way to combine the two genres and would be pursuing the hot, inked-up bride and nothing else.
bwield wrote:
Is the studio space essential to your business?
it's all I know. Essential......probably not. But I meet all of my clients there and do 100% of my business there. I photograph business and grad portraits there. And I feel that If I don't have the business space, I would attract even less business and put myself in the same status as all of the other photographers in my area. Meaning even less business. That's my view on it. Not sure if it's realistic. My rent is $500.00 a month, not including all of the usual monthly bills, phones, internet, electric, business insurance.
When I first started out in the photography profession, I worked out of my home. That was very frustrating to say the least. People not showing up for scheduled appts., people showing up without appts, going to meets and people flaking, wasting time and gas, having to alter family life to put on a good show when clients came over, kids stuck in their rooms, wife getting pissed because she could not change into her pj's after getting home from work because a client was coming over.......issues like that.
That was in my younger years. Now, the kids are grown, wife says she doesnt care anymore......so If I do end up working from home, Im going to take the dining room and make it into my office. Bye bye dining room table OR take the living room, dump the couch, put my desk there and use that. I know the wife won't like that...........but oh well........i have to do what I have to do..........or I could just say F it, give up my house, move my family in with her mother and start collecting welfare.
I would also re-evaluate whether a studio space is essential... One of the many reasons I enjoy the photography business is the relatively low overhead.
marti.g3 wrote:
it's all I know. Essential......probably not. But I meet all of my clients there and do 100% of my business there. I photograph business and grad portraits there. And I feel that If I don't have the business space, I would attract even less business and put myself in the same status as all of the other photographers in my area. Meaning even less business. That's my view on it. Not sure if it's realistic. My rent is $500.00 a month, not including all of the usual monthly bills, phones, internet, electric, business insurance.
When I first started out in the photography profession, I worked out of my home. That was very frustrating to say the least. People not showing up for scheduled appts., people showing up without appts, going to meets and people flaking, wasting time and gas, having to alter family life to put on a good show when clients came over, kids stuck in their rooms, wife getting pissed because she could not change into her pj's after getting home from work because a client was coming over.......issues like that.
That was in my younger years. Now, the kids are grown, wife says she doesnt care anymore......so If I do end up working from home, Im going to take the dining room and make it into my office. Bye bye dining room table OR take the living room, dump the couch, put my desk there and use that. I know the wife won't like that...........but oh well........i have to do what I have to do..........or I could just say F it, give up my house, move my family in with her mother and start collecting welfare. ...Show more →
Would you mind sharing your website? You can PM it to me. Personally, if I were in your situation, it sounds like your images are fine. You may need to rebrand. $500/month rent is nothing. I'd probably keep the space and meet clients there.
It sort of sounds like you bought the studio (maybe kept the name?) and are still attracting the low budget people that the previous owner was working with.
You are the first photographer I've ever heard say something like this. Are you shooting with a Rebel and kit lens?
MattSepeta wrote:
I would also re-evaluate whether a studio space is essential... One of the many reasons I enjoy the photography business is the relatively low overhead.
This is a positive thread. I am going to say something negative in order to hopefully make a positive point. This is potentially a fool's errand...
I hate the "some people have IT" argument because it artificially creates a hierarchy that doesn't exist. I understand that people who have figured out how to be good at something like to think they are special. For some reason it pleases the human psyche to believe we were born awesome instead of working to get there - I don't know why but them's the breaks. So people who have figured out how to be good like to hear things like "IT" because it reinforces the sense that they are special. This denigrates the work and system building in favor of believing in destiny and fairy tales. Believe in the work.
The flip side of that coin is that the folks that are still working it out think they were born deficient. They assume that since they don't have it figured out they genetically CAN'T figure it out. This creates unnecessary glass ceilings and keeps people from achieving what they can. This also denigrates the work and adds more fuel to the destiny/fairy tale BS argument.
My point is that there is cause and effect in any business and if you study it and leverage it you can build a successful business. Period. I don't think I suck, I just know that getting to where I've gotten (which I don't think is any great place BTW) isn't a function of me being special, it is a function of figuring out what was working, figuring out why it was working, and leveraging that. No magic, no genetic advantage, just plain old mundane-assed work.
I think that both TRR and others' viewpoints are not necessarily opposed.. but I will still disagree with TRR on a basis that yes I believe some people are inherently more talented in a certain thing over others.
Should that hinders you from achieving great things? No. But it does mean that you have to work harder. Can you still be successful? Absolutely.
But I do think that our conversation digressed from the original intent of the OP, which is that some high-end shooters just have 'it', with 'it' being anything that allows them to get those client base, not just photography skills. And to that, I will agree with TRR (and Inku) wholeheartedly.
MattSepeta wrote:
I would also re-evaluate whether a studio space is essential... One of the many reasons I enjoy the photography business is the relatively low overhead.
cineski wrote:
You are the first photographer I've ever heard say something like this. Are you shooting with a Rebel and kit lens?
Really?? Photography is one of the cheapest businesses imaginable. There are almost no other businesses that can operate with the overhead than many of us do. That's why there's so many of us.
cineski wrote:
You are the first photographer I've ever heard say something like this. Are you shooting with a Rebel and kit lens?
I completely agree with him. A lot of pro photographers talk themselves into buying tons of gear, but that doesn't make it mandatory. You can easily by a pair of full frame cameras, several primes, flashes, batteries, and cards for well under 5 grand if you shoot Nikon, and half of that if you shoot Canon. Heck, if you're not picky about going full frame, it's even cheaper than that.
TRReichman wrote:
This is a positive thread. I am going to say something negative in order to hopefully make a positive point. This is potentially a fool's errand...
I hate the "some people have IT" argument because it artificially creates a hierarchy that doesn't exist. I understand that people who have figured out how to be good at something like to think they are special. For some reason it pleases the human psyche to believe we were born awesome instead of working to get there - I don't know why but them's the breaks. So people who have figured out how to be good like to hear things like "IT" because it reinforces the sense that they are special. This denigrates the work and system building in favor of believing in destiny and fairy tales. Believe in the work.
The flip side of that coin is that the folks that are still working it out think they were born deficient. They assume that since they don't have it figured out they genetically CAN'T figure it out. This creates unnecessary glass ceilings and keeps people from achieving what they can. This also denigrates the work and adds more fuel to the destiny/fairy tale BS argument.
My point is that there is cause and effect in any business and if you study it and leverage it you can build a successful business. Period. I don't think I suck, I just know that getting to where I've gotten (which I don't think is any great place BTW) isn't a function of me being special, it is a function of figuring out what was working, figuring out why it was working, and leveraging that. No magic, no genetic advantage, just plain old mundane-assed work.
There's plenty of stuff I'll disagree with you about (e.g., the vendor food issue), but we've always been on the same page here. One of my other hobbies is language learning, and another is playing instruments. Both of those areas are also filled with people championing the idea of "it" as it keeps them from having to put nearly as much effort into the grunt work of...working. It's bunk there and it's bunk here.
Put 10,000 hours into marketing, branding, networking...heck, even taking pictures, and you'll become immeasurably better at it. It doesn't mean you'll turn into your favorite shooter / brander / etc, but it does mean you'll get much closer to where you'd like to be. But most folks are much more interested in saying they aren't good at stuff because they weren't born with the gifts, and not that they weren't able or willing to put the hours in.
