Aswanley Photographer?

[sp33dy]

Does anyone know who it was?

 

[FigJam]

I think George (Michie) was there? Did you have a good day?

 

[RomanyMayday]

Peak

 

[Admirable]

Ha, where's that popcorn smiley when you need it!

 

[George Michie]

Thanks for the plug Mrs F but I wasn't able to attend after all

 

[FigJam]

Oh dear, is tog wars still raging?!

 

[MagicMelon]

Yeah, was Peak. Although he seemed to have some other dude with him taking pics too - I assume they'll be on his website too.

 

[bogpony]

Would be exceptionally surprised if any photographers were allowed to be there as well as Peak...a tog I know was informed by organisers two years ago it was a closed door as they had one already...

 

[FigJam]

Would be exceptionally surprised if any photographers were allowed to be there as well as Peak...a tog I know was informed by organisers two years ago it was a closed door as they had one already...

Which is just ridiculous as we all know that our preference is to have as many photos to look at and choose from as is humanly possible! Why not let more photographers cover more of the course/event? It's daft and very annoying from a competitor's point of view.

 

[spidge]

Which is just ridiculous as we all know that our preference is to have as many photos to look at and choose from as is humanly possible! Why not let more photographers cover more of the course/event? It's daft and very annoying from a competitor's point of view.

Perhaps they have to pay an attendance fee and have therefore sought to protect their business by having an exclusivity clause in their contract with the organisers? More difficult is how this is policed and enforced in reality on the day of the event and subsequently on tinternet.

 

[FigJam]

But my point is that it is not in the competitor's best interest to have only one pro 'tog on site. One photographer can only be in one place at a time, therefore limiting how many photos we get to choose from. Different story if the one company was on site with a number of staff, but up here, this is not (usually) the case.

So because of a "block" on more than one photographer, the competitors will have a choice of... one XC fence, maybe two if they're lucky. Whereas with other photographers on site, they could have a choice of two or three XC fences. Maybe even SJ coverage also. I know what I'd prefer...

And the quality of the photos will do the talking, take good shots and folk will want to buy them. You just need to be better than the "competition", you shouldn't need to be so worried that you need to block them!

 

[Baileyhoss]

I think it's a shame that events stop more than one photographer attending. I for one don't buy pics unless they really impress me and I would want them on display, as they are too expensive to order & stick in a drawer. (however I would probably buy loads more if you could get small digital uploads at a small cost) I wouldn't buy a photo, just coz it's the only one available if you know what i mean.

The past few comps I have been at, I am generally disappointed with xc pics, sometimes it seems that photographers don't walk the courses and pick fences by what will look great, they'll go for what's easiest for them to get to or perhaps somewhere they can take more than one.

e.g., I have competed at Burgie a few times and the only photo I have bought, was from the landing side of the drop wall, which made a fabulous photo as the jump looked so imposing. I have been photographed two or three times at the 'carrot', maybe photographers like it because it's orange?, but it's essentially a small hanging log, doesn't make for a good action shot, not something I'm going to pay £10+ for anyway and certainly not boast about it by hanging it on my wall. Especially when on the same course, we had to clear a huge brush fence, big drops, brick walls etc.
Also, ditches, exceptionally you'll get a good ditch shot, but generally they are cat leaps, left behind riders and funny faces.

Sorry to go off on a tangent basically, I agree that it would be good for riders to have more of a selection.

 

[bogpony]

It is a shame, although perhaps as pointed out, the photographer 'pays' to be there.....except that i don't really think this is the case in this instance...from a bystander's perspective, it seems Scotland is governed by 'agreements' spoken or otherwise

Usually they only have to pay to be there if they are printing on site, in which case they pay for a trade stand.
I can understand why a photographer might want to be the only 'tog there....as they would perceive themselves to be getting the whole market share as it were, but this is often not the case.

I wonder if any photographer has got in trouble for merely turning up at a BE event and snapping away, and then selling the photographs off their website afterwards??

Not BE, but this happens at the Highland Show, although not for much longer....

 

[FigJam]

There have indeed been cases where the organiser has demanded "non-official" 'togs cannot put pictures on their own websites for sale.

 

[Baileyhoss]

I have heard of 'unofficial' togs being acosted at events if there is an official photographer present.

However one thing I would say, where this is not the case and there are other photographers there, could they please make a point of displaying their attendence? flyers, cards, or even a personalised jacket or something so we know where to look for pics?

 

[spidge]

But my point is that it is not in the competitor's best interest to have only one pro 'tog on site. One photographer can only be in one place at a time, therefore limiting how many photos we get to choose from. Different story if the one company was on site with a number of staff, but up here, this is not (usually) the case.

So because of a "block" on more than one photographer, the competitors will have a choice of... one XC fence, maybe two if they're lucky. Whereas with other photographers on site, they could have a choice of two or three XC fences. Maybe even SJ coverage also. I know what I'd prefer...

And the quality of the photos will do the talking, take good shots and folk will want to buy them. You just need to be better than the "competition", you shouldn't need to be so worried that you need to block them!

re para one- the competitors best interests do not necessarily feature high on the pro togs agenda. He will want to obtain the best images he can in the most cost efficient way to produce the maximum profit, remember he's in business. Unlike the unofficial tog who may have a full time job in a differnent industry entirely who can just turn up with his camera, the pro tog will have had to pay his rent upfront, pay staff. diesel etc etc. If the pro tog is me I always seek to put at least 2 cameras on the course and cover as many jumps as possible. More choice for the customer almost always results in multiple sales, no brainer as far as I see it. Covering more than I discipline is also sensible IMHO.

It is obviously a free for all up there which makes life for the pro tog tricky as he will be leaking sales to every tom dick and harry wannabe tog who will undercut his prices etc because they do not have his overheads ( or perhaps insurance, tax liabilities etc if you get my drift). It s not a level playing field and I do not blame the pro or official tog for seeking to protect his business.

When competitors are on my stand bitching about how crap opposition tog xyz is and asking me to approach the venue, I politely thank them for the info and ask them if they have thought about approaching the venue owner or organiser to let them know how dissatisfied they are. If enough competitors did so, the organisers would take note. At some of the venues I photograph at regularly both I and the venue owners know that we bring them extra business from competitors who are their purely and simply because they have ascertained beforehand that we will be there on that particular day. These competitors require images for commercial purposes and know that we can and will supply the images that they require suitable for advertising .

 

[FigJam]

I see your points, but if folk are not happy with the one photo on offer (especially now, with £ getting much tighter for pretty much everyone), then everyone loses- the 'tog doesn't make a sale and the customer doesn't have a photo they are happy with.

Very few photography companies up here have more than one photographer working at the event, so by restricting the number of photographers allowed to cover the event, the customer is very limited in choice (ie has none!).

There are plenty of events who do allow more than one 'tog. Why is photography any different to any other industry where monopolies tend to be discouraged/illegal (think BAA having to sell off some of it's airports etc) in order to keep costs competitive and fair.

A monopoly would be unhealthy and (as I've said before) surely some competition should only serve to make you do your best to provide as good a service as possible and win the business by taking the best photos? Not resorting to blocking your rivals. We're not allowed to ban those we see as a threat from riding in our section!

People will always be wanting photos, but I'd reckon if you were to ask, the majority would want good quality and good choice, not just "the only option".

 

[sp33dy]

Well that innocent question has sparked quite a debate!!!

FJ - I had a good day out - soaked in the dressage but the sun came out for SJ and XC, shame the ground became really sticky on the first half of the course but considering the amount of rain we had last week - it wasn't bad at all!!!