stupidity

How not to run a photo business

No Comments

Many photographers struggle with their pricing. This is normal. The best way for a photographer to establish their business is to understand how their business operates and, for that matter, how any (photography) business operates.

The photographer learns to price according to their location, their business plans and their market positioning. This takes time and effort and, yes, mistakes will be made along the way.

And then there are photographers who like to take shortcuts.

I got a phone call today from someone claiming to be an office manager. She said they needed some business portraits. She asked how much I charged, how the pictures would be shot, whether I use softboxes or umbrellas, what type of backgrounds are best, how the photos are selected, what amount of retouching I would do, and how the pictures would be delivered. After I answered all her questions, she suddenly hung up.
Continue reading →

Failing a class

No Comments

It’s not even necessary to read the news story. The picture says it all.

In a Grade 2 class photo, all the students are grouped together in the centre. Except one. A student in a wheelchair is off to the side. The child’s father said he cried when he saw the photo.

The picture is not just thoughtless, it’s also bad photography. It shows how not to do a group photo. It shows what happens when a photographer doesn’t know what they’re doing. It shows what happens when a photographer or school portrait company, in this case, Lifetouch, is too busy being fast and cheap.

Lifetouch says, “Our school photographers take their role in preserving memories seriously” and “Our school photographers are committed to making each child feel special and valued.” It seems the company failed this class.
Continue reading →

Bad Driving

No Comments

A Montreal photographer last week did an assignment for The Globe and Mail about an Olympic athlete and the car she drives. The athlete lives in Laval, Quebec, and she happens to drive a BMW Mini vehicle.

A Laval BMW Mini dealership saw the story and contacted the photographer to ask permission to use the picture for its Facebook marketing. The luxury car dealer offered the photographer a credit line.

Instead, the photographer asked for a nominal $150.

The car dealership refused and then just took the photo from the newspaper’s web site and reused it without any credit line.
Continue reading →

Air Ball

No Comments

Last year, Ranaan Katz, a minority co-owner of the NBA’s current championship team the Miami Heat filed a lawsuit against a blogger who was critical of Katz’ commercial real estate business.

Two weeks ago, Katz filed a copyright infringement suit against the same blogger for publishing an unflattering picture of him. The photo was apparently taken while Katz was standing courtside at a Miami Heat game. He’s also suing Google for refusing to remove the photo from the Web.

Katz is claiming that he owns the copyright to the picture without any further proof.
Continue reading →

Annual report failure

No Comments

Here’s another example of corporate stupidity caused by the shortsighted desire to save a buck.

Earlier today, I was looking through the 2010 annual report from Ontario’s Toronto-based Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). The 2011 annual report is not yet available.

The annual report contains one business portrait of its chairman and one of its president. All the other executives, managers and employees shown in the other photos are fake. None of those people work for this agency. The offices shown in those pictures are also fake.
Continue reading →

That’s not cricket

No Comments

Here’s an example of what happens when an organization cuts corners and goes cheap. The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants is promoting its Toronto cricket tournament which benefits school cricket teams. Good for them.

But by looking at the promotional poster for the event, it’s painfully obvious that the organizers didn’t bother to hire a professional photographer or designer. Is this poster supposed to be taken seriously or is it meant as a joke?
Continue reading →

What’s in a name?

No Comments

The Associated Press (AP) is launching its new entertainment picture agency. 

Just what the world needs, another picture agency cranking out more of the same, commodity, entertainment photos and producing even more celebrity worship. (Yes, I sometimes shoot the same entertainment pictures and I plead guilty as charged.)

The advantage of taking pictures of the famous is that they get published.

– US Photographer Elliott Erwitt

But that’s not the fun part.

AP is using the name “Invision Agency”.

Dictionaries define invision as: want of vision, without the power of seeing, lack of vision. It’s also a synonym for blindness. The word invision is related to the word invisible but it’s obsolete in the English language.

Did AP really mean to use the word envision?

 

css.php