JohannesVerne

I don't do much family photography outside of my own family, but in general if you're giving prompts it's not going to look candid.

If you want candid, be a fly on the wall while they're doing their own thing. It's probably not going to work for any short or timed session, unless you're just getting hired to follow them around, but if you're giving prompts to get the candid look you aren't going to get a candid look. You can give them something unrelated to do, but again that's going to depend on the constraints of the location and time allotted for the shoot.

To add to what u/undetermined_outcom3 said, you can still print them but let them know the timeframe for getting them will take longer. You don't have to just come out and say "hey I can't afford that now" but can say something along the lines of "due to business constraints it may take a month or two to get the prints delivered, but let me know what you want printed and I will keep you updated when they come in and get shipped for delivery." That way it's still clear that you can't to it at the moment, but also still will honor the contract even a few years later.

And depending on what they want printed and at what size, it may not cost all that much anyway. So if you say that it may take a few months, and can then deliver within a month, that just makes it look like you're making even more of an effort than required by the contract.

To go against what some people have said here, depending on the type of event and the standards in that community, shooting could get you blacklisted. That's an extreme case, but with equine events at least it's accepted that there's the official photographer, and if you shoot at the event without consulting them you can be kicked out, prevented from shooting at that venue (and others, because people will talk), and restrict your chances of ever being the official photographer. I don't know if it works exactly the same with other sports, but equine venues absolutely will kick out individually hired photographers if it's interfering with the official photographer.

Venues have a stake in this, since if their official photographer gets undercut then they'll just stop showing up. Then they don't get any photos, lose out on marketing material, and people at the event get upset because there's no photos. It's not the end of the world, but it definitely hurts them financially.

For the official photographer, it's directly hurting their sales. They may be ok with it, since it's just for one client and isn't likely to be a huge dent in their sales, but if you don't talk to them beforehand (and the venue) it can create a lot of hard feelings. And as the official photographer they're better connected, and can make it difficult for you to get into any more events if it becomes a problem (again, the venues have motivation to look out for the interests of the official photographer so they continue to have a photographer at the events). If you reach out and they're fine with it, it can help you in the long run as well. If you do a good job with your shots, between the courtesy shown of reaching out an quality of work it's possible to get recommended when they can't make an event. Or be asked to work as a second shooter when there's more to cover than one person can handle. All of which will build connections that will let you start shooting the events yourself.

So before you take the job I highly encourage you to reach out to both the venue and official photographer to clear it first. Not only will it help prevent any conflict of interests, it's a good way to start building the connections that will boost your career.

Also, as someone who shoots equine under this model of work, the venues really aren't being an asshole about it. The photographer can make a lot more from individual sales than the venue could pay them upfront, and exclusive access to shooting the event is worth it. The venue will (often) also pay for some of the photos as well. Think of it like this- wedding photographers will charge 2k-3k for ~6 hours work on average. Depending on the event, you could be there anywhere from a couple hours for sports like basketball, soccer, football, etc... or up to twelve hours for longer events like track, equine, or cross country. With the shorter events they could pay for the time but it's really not going to be worth it for the photographer if that's all the money they get. For the longer events, the venue can't afford the time if they're paying up front. But even at low-level equine events, I can sell individual photos for $10-$20, and end up making a few thousand dollars for a day of work even if only a small percentage of participants buy photos. At higher levels, I can sell the same photos for $40-$50 and double my profits (and that's not including the fact that more people tend to pay for photos at higher level events).

So as the official photographer, while it's technically a risk to shoot unpaid and only sell the shots later, it actually benefits me to use that model since I have exclusive shooting rights. It helps the venue to, as it cuts their upfront costs some to not pay for the photographer in exchange for not letting in other photographers. Which is why it can be a problem for someone to come in and start shooting when they aren't the official photographer, and why both the photographer and venue have a reason to not allow that to happen.

It's in english, but there's the r/photoclass that's going to be starting in just over a month. It's free, well planned out, and there's a number of mentors that will be helping to give more personalized feedback than you generally get with a shorter course. There's also the benefit of being a full year, so it's not trying to condense everything down to the bare minimum (or leaving it out entirely) just to fit it in the course.

While I haven't taken Pierre's course, most of the "learn photography in one month!" courses just throw the same basics out there that you can already find for free on youtube or learn just by practicing. They're too condensed to really teach much, and even when they manage to cover the basics it's not the most in-depth or practical way to learn. There's just too much in photography that relies on practicing consistently to internalize to really learn in just a month.

That's a tactic that's been used before, and generally is either a scam or used by someone who doesn't know what they're doing/doesn't have good enough work to stand on it's own. It sounds decent in theory but in practice you aren't going to land as many clients, there's no guaranteed payout, and the type of client who would hire a photographer with this practice is generally not the type of client who's going to pay large amounts of money for a photo and will likely complain about pricing or just not buy anything then complain online that it's a scam.

Generally, marketing is more about reaching out and interacting. If you can do that well, and your portfolio is good enough that people would want to use you as the photographer, you'll land clients. Just spamming advertisements isn't going to work no matter how your pricing is set up, and charging a high price for delivery after a "free" session isn't going to be well received or get many referrals.

If a client is going to go to someone who will do a free session over you, it really doesn't matter how you set the pricing. If the prices are upfront, they'll still go to the photographer who isn't charging anything for delivery. If the pricing is hidden until after the shoot, it's a scam. And people will rightly call it out as a scam. The best practice in this scenario is to just look for different clients. Don't market to the people who are looking for free or really cheap. There are people out there who are more than willing to pay for quality, and as long as you can provide that quality you can land the clients.

There are some instances where a model similar to what you laid out works, but it's generally not with portraiture. And the fact that you're pushing a private discord server to "talk about the details" just screams scam. So no, I don't think it's a good marketing practice. Especially since it has nothing to do with marketing, and is just a pricing scheme.

I'm pretty sure Copics are archival (basically anything considered lightfast in the traditional arts is the same as archival for photography, and Copic markers are definitely pro art supplies), and those or sharpies should be perfectly fine. Especially signing the back of a print.

As far as whether it matters or not is dependent on how long you want it to last without fading. On the back of a print it's really not an issue for the ink fading, I've got some old family prints filed away from 60+ years ago where the writing on the back is still perfectly fine. Obviously the paper is different, but there also wasn't any particular care for what pen/ink was used. I'd recommend against a regular ballpoint pen, but that's more because it's more likely to indent the paper than any longevity issues with the ink. If it's not going to be exposed to UV/sunlight regularly, being archival doesn't make much difference unless you expect the shot to be on display for more than a few hundred years. Although even in that case, the photo itself is more likely to have fading issues than a signature on the back.

It really depends on how much space you need, what angle you're shooting from, and how tall your model is. Generally speaking I'd suggest twice the model's height for the length of the backdrop, but you may want longer.

To calculate it you can always fall back on a tape measure and some simple math- if you know how high the backdrop will be (generally assume as tall as you can go within the space available) and the distance you want the model from the backdrop (plus an extra couple feet so the edge either isn't in frame or is easy to photoshop out), you can calculate the floor length and add it to the height to get the total backdrop length you need (A²+B²=C², so in this case C²-A²=B² where A=height, B=floor length, and C=distance from the top of the backdrop to the point you want it to extend to)

Depending on your time to dedicate to it, photo books could be a way to share the work. I don't know if it's worth the effort to sort/organize it all, make sure everything is scanned, and design it, but if you have the time it could be a good way to keep the memories alive.

Depending on the content it could also be marketable for sales or finding a publisher who's willing to handle it. It still puts a lot of work on you, but if the emotional effort of going through all of it is manageable and you have the time to dedicate to it, you could have a good product in the end for people to view.

Without seeing your portfolio, no one can really say too much that's definitive.

So what genre are you looking to shoot? What sort of portfolio do you have, and do you have a site set up to show it to others? What can you offer that people can't find with other photographers in your area?

And in the end, why do you want to make it a business?

Making money with photography is more about business skills than ability as a photographer. If you're interested in the business aspect, focus on that. If you're not, and just want to shoot for the joy of shooting, why ruin it with the stress of running a business? If it's more of a need for money, there are far easier and more reliable ways to get a paycheck. If you just want a bit of extra income from something you enjoy doing, then just have fun with it, charge a fair price for shoots when people ask, and don't expect too much if you aren't actively marketing.