photography WWYD

[dukie41181]

My daughter's 2nd bday is coming up and we have to make a decision about what to do for her photos. We have 2 options.

1. Photographer #1 - she is very artistic in style. We would do photos in her studio about an hour away. Photos are late Feb in MI so would be inside. This photographer is a friend but the downside is that she's expensive! We will be obligated to invest at least $500. Another positive is that our youngest will be included in the shoot and while this photographer hyas taken photos of daughter #1 many times she's never gotten daughter #2. Oh yeah, another downside is we won't own the rights to the photos.

Photographer #2 - she's a newer photographer and has less of an artistic flare. She doesn't have a studio so photos would be at our house and inside. We have toys everywhere so I'm anxious about getting "clean " photos. Photos this way would be about $200 and we'd hold rights to photos.

I want to use photog #1 but husband points out we'll get a better value with #2 which is true. I like the idea of getting great photos of the girls together without the stress of being in our house with toys in all the shots. I can't decide if I'm making an emotional but not pragmatic choice. WWYD?

ETA: Finances are also a concern somewhat as my husband is the only wage earner currently and he works on commission...so far the beginning of 2011 has been challenging. We do however anticipate a hefty tax refund as we have never changed his withholding to account for the girls and we anticipate a big reimbursement from money paid for our daughter's birth center birth.

[lalasmama]

I'd go with #2. My reasoning is largely based on owning the rights... and since a friend of mine is a new photographer, I love being able to support the "underdog"/newbie. And I think it's highway robbery to pay $500+ for b-day and new baby pics. But I'm usually also very pleased with my $50 JCP sitting, including 10 prints! Also, in my limited experience, a less experienced photog will be spending more time with you, shooting more pics, etc., which allows you more chances to get the perfect expression :)

[caheinz]

With #2 you'll be getting more than you're paying for, since you have the rights and can print anywhere, anytime, as much as you'd like.

Your kids will be more comfortable at home, and more likely to settle down faster than they will after an hour's drive to a new place, no?

Don't worry about a mess at home. A sheet can work wonders as a backdrop, and poof!, the toys (and mess) are gone. Besides -- wouldn't it be sweet to have pics where each girl has their favorite toy/animal? (Even if that favorite was only picked that morning?)

[dukie41181]

Thanks for thoughts so far! I'm still stuck with #1as I have this vision in my head of a particular awesome shot we could get in her studio and the images are just sooooooooooo perfect when finished! Part of me just wants daughter #2 to have a few opportunities to work with this photographer as daughter #1 has 4 times already! And my sister is booking with her (I introduced them) and I'll be green with envy over all the sibling shots! I'm still undecided...

[Seitvonzu]

it sounds like your leaning toward photographer #1, so take this for what it's worth.... five hundred dollars is a TON of money!!! i think even 200 is high for birthday/sibling shots, but then, the only "professional" photo experience lu has had is a shoot with her grandparents at sears ;) they got some pictures (not sure how much ) and i got a "free" 8X10.... so, um yeah.

i find that some of our favorite pictures are candids with toys and such (books! i love BOOK picture!). i know that even *i* with my limited photography experience can frame shots of my house in a way that make me think "wow, whose house is THAT?" somethng about the light can soften the mess, and things suddenly look warm and cozy (at least i tell myself that) i'm sure a photographer can figure this out, and i agree that the "newbie" will be willing to work with you...

all that said, if you are going to regret not getting the 500 dollar photo shoot for the rest of your life, i might chock it up as a ONE time thing. (i wouldn't get caught up with dc2 getting 4 photo shoots by 2...for example) if it was very important to me, i might say i would forego birthday/christmas/mother'sday/etc gifts for a year or something (we're not extravagant gift people). it sounds like this is for YOU, so i'd decide if it was worth sacrificing other things to make it happen. i wouldn't put my family in a financial way to do this, but it does sound very important to you to get the shots you want.

[minnie-zb]

Why not wait until both of the children are older and do a photo session with your friend?

Once you have two, it really changes what you did for the first one. Are you prepared to spend $1000 per year for two birthdays? If you do it for the one, you will have to do it for the other child. Something to think about.

[WolfpackMom]

I would definitely go with number 2 and I would also just ask if she can get DD2 in a couple shots. I happen to love in home shoots though way more than studio. Kids are more comfortable in their own enviornment and act more natural - I also like more artsy "real life" photos though. Our photographer comes to the house and is able to do real life pics an also can bring a black drape etc if you want a studio type shot, photog #2 might be able to do that.
$500 is way overpriced for what you are getting with number 1 imho...

[LMPC]

If finances are a concern then I think having pictures taken in the house is absolutely doable. We had DD's 1 yr pix taken at our house and the photographer was able to find backdrops that minimized the clutter in our house...for example, she moved the couch out a little bit so that it was the backdrop (rather than all the toys just behind it). Simple thing but made all the difference.

If you find that $500 is more in your budget after taxes, etc. then I would say weigh the end result pictures rather than the cost. To me great pictures are priceless (whoever takes them). I am not able to get the amazing shots our photographer is, so I call her every so often to take pix of DD.

I think whatever you do, be happy with the decision. When we make genuine decisions we are less likely to have regrets (JMhumbleO).

[crl]

Can you find an option 3? We recently had family shoots done with a groupon and that was a fabulous deal.

That said, we don't do professional photos very often so I'd probably spring for the photographer I really wanted. But I would do the whole family as well as the kids. And then we wouldn't do professional photos again for at least two or three years. Maybe longer.

Catherine

[dukie41181]

I'm thinking we'll go with photographer #2. I realized that to get what we really wanted it will run far more than the $500 (more like $850) and while I value the end product, I just don't think its something we can realistically afford right now. I guess daughter #2 will have a slightly different experience than daugther #1 but I will still do photos every 3 months her first year like I did for daughter #1! We sure do lots of professional photos here at my house! For daughter #1 we did newborn, 4 months, 6 months, year, 18 months and now 2 years. YIKES! But I really do love having nice photos along the way! So special to me (and hopefully somday, to them)!

[indigo99]

As far as "value" goes, it's only a good deal if you get great pictures. Shots that you could do yourself aren't really worth paying someone else for at any price.

All photographers will have some super happy customers who love their work regardless of how good they actually are, and only you know how picky you are and how likely you are to be happy with the final result. Good photography is a luxury product that is important enough to some people to pay more $ for, while others really don't care about it.

You obviously don't need to spend more than you are comfortable with, but it doesn't matter if you have the rights to the photos and can print 20 of every single pose if the photos aren't great. I would rather have 4 or 5 really beautiful photos hanging on the wall than a box full of so-so pictures in my closet.

You don't want your daughter to wonder one day why there are better photos of her sister than of her.

Of course I am probably biased since I am a photographer and am trying to make a living. Basically anyone charging less than $100 an hour of shooting time is not making enough profit to stay in business as a full-time photography business owner. I have to believe that if people actually knew how little we actually keep (less than 1/3) and how hard we actually work (+20 hours for one session in my case) then they would stop viewing our prices as "highway robbery".

[JoyNChrist]

As far as "value" goes, it's only a good deal if you get great pictures. Shots that you could do yourself aren't really worth paying someone else for at any price.

All photographers will have some super happy customers who love their work regardless of how good they actually are, and only you know how picky you are and how likely you are to be happy with the final result. Good photography is a luxury product that is important enough to some people to pay more $ for, while others really don't care about it.

You obviously don't need to spend more than you are comfortable with, but it doesn't matter if you have the rights to the photos and can print 20 of every single pose if the photos aren't great. I would rather have 4 or 5 really beautiful photos hanging on the wall than a box full of so-so pictures in my closet.

You don't want your daughter to wonder one day why there are better photos of her sister than of her.

Of course I am probably biased since I am a photographer and am trying to make a living. Basically anyone charging less than $100 an hour of shooting time is not making enough profit to stay in business as a full-time photography business owner. I have to believe that if people actually knew how little we actually keep (less than 1/3) and how hard we actually work (+20 hours for one session in my case) then they would stop viewing our prices as "highway robbery".

:yeahthat: to all of it.

Since photographer #1 has a studio, she's instead a lot more in the space, backgrounds, lighting, props, etc. I would also bet that she's invested more in lenses, training, etc. All of which makes a difference in the end product.

Obviously everyone has to decide what's worth it to them, but when it comes to photography (as with most other things, you tend to get what you pay for. The reason better photographers charge more money is because it is a hugely expensive, time-consuming business.