# Client's satisfaction vs artistic freedom..



## aliyawar (Dec 15, 2012)

What do you do when you have to choose between artistic freedom and client's satisfaction....which should be given more importance by a phototgrapher...


----------



## SCraig (Dec 15, 2012)

You have ZERO choice.  If you are being paid to provide what a client wants then what you want is meaningless.


----------



## KmH (Dec 15, 2012)

That would depend on the type of photography that is involved - be it retail, commercial, or editorial.


----------



## Mully (Dec 15, 2012)

KmH said:


> That would depend on the type of photography that is involved - be it retail, commercial, or editorial.



This makes no sense!!! .... the client pays you so you give the client what he wants, THEN do what you think works better and you are covered without fuss.


----------



## Overread (Dec 15, 2012)

In theory if you're paid to work you do what you've agreed to do for the amount stated - ergo the client is your boss.

In practice whilst the client is your boss, you are also the experienced person within your select field and thus you also have a say in what can/is done to get to the final result. Sometimes you will have to change things from what the client wishes or have to negotiate with them to change their expectations/demands.

In general though whatever happens, you should clearly get a contract between you both and the general aim is that you should achieve what you promise within that contract.


----------



## bogeyguy (Dec 15, 2012)

compromise???


----------



## KmH (Dec 15, 2012)

Mully said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > That would depend on the type of photography that is involved - be it retail, commercial, or editorial.
> ...


It does if you consider how much input each type of client will have.

Editorial clients usually need images that are as close to reality as possible. In short, little if any artistic license can be granted to the photographer.
Retail clients usually have some idea of what they want, but it is often vague and they have difficulty expressing what it is they are hoping for. This is where the photographer has the most artistic freedom.
Commercial clients usually have the most control over how much artistic freedom the photographer has.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 15, 2012)

SCraig said:


> You have ZERO choice.  If you are being paid to provide what a client wants then what you want is meaningless.



What if the client wants something that could harm your reputation?


----------



## curtyoungblood (Dec 15, 2012)

I think this is a false choice that can paint you into a corner with your photography.  

If you are being paid by someone to get a picture for them, by all means, get the photograph that they say they want.  Typically, this is going to be the straightforward, easy shot.  Get it in the bag, do it well, and then use your artistic vision. Give the client more than they want and they'll be happy.  Even if the client doesn't like the photo that you did for yourself, they'll appreciate the extra effort and will still be able to choose the image they had in mind.


----------



## Mully (Dec 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > You have ZERO choice.  If you are being paid to provide what a client wants then what you want is meaningless.
> ...



If you don't have a reputation ...no harm done LOL


----------



## unpopular (Dec 15, 2012)

everyone has a reputation!

---

I had one employer who'd bend over backwards for his clients, without any regard for if it made any sense. He was all about customer service, all the way up to the day he shut down the shop; he went out of business. The customer isn't always right.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 15, 2012)

If you have a client, then you have a commercial relationship, which in turn is "usually" governed by an agreement, which "usually" describes the product and services to be delivered, the payment terms, and the fine print (stuff you lean on when things don't go according to plan).  If your artistic vision was part of the service, then question is answered.  If the product to be delivered was well defined by the client, then again the question is answered - you either agree to deliver as per specs, or you don't take on the job.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > You have ZERO choice.  If you are being paid to provide what a client wants then what you want is meaningless.
> ...



You shouldn't have taken the job.  You had that choice, and knew beforehand what the job entailed and what the consequences to your reputation would be, before you agreed to take it.


----------



## orljustin (Dec 15, 2012)

SCraig said:


> You have ZERO choice.  If you are being paid to provide what a client wants then what you want is meaningless.



Exactly.  Be 'free' on your own time.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 15, 2012)

SCraig said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > SCraig said:
> ...



Not necessarily. The issue isn't that cut and dry. I've worked on my projects where the client ran away with it, starting out simple and ending up in a giant mess. Most of my supervisors knew how to delegate this situation, others opt to loose money and quality in the name of "customer service". Good creative artists know how to take control and ensure your clients respect your expertise, while maintaining a positive relationship. Mediocre artists pandor to every bad idea the client entertains.

It's a balancing act.


----------



## IByte (Dec 15, 2012)

Freedom comes when you are on your own program, or if you hire models to play by your own rules .


----------



## aliyawar (Dec 16, 2012)

Thanks all...  I appreciate your opinions...but doesn't yielding to your clients absurd demands make photography "art"less...something inferior than art...no artist worth their salt allow someone else to play with their creativity...but again I understand,you have got to make compromises if you want to be in the business...


----------



## onelove (Dec 16, 2012)

aliyawar said:


> Thanks all...  I appreciate your opinions...but doesn't yielding to your clients absurd demands make photography "art"less...something inferior than art...no artist worth their salt allow someone else to play with their creativity...but again I understand,you have got to make compromises if you want to be in the business...



While there are always exceptions, these two phrases are usually accurate: *Starving* Artist and *Working* Pro


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

The job of a creative professional is to provide the client what they want, but this doesn't mean that what they want is are poor results. The trick is to understand what they really want. When a client says that they want to look like some horrendous example of "smooth skin" from some facebook photographer, it's your job to know that what they are showing you is an extreme example, and that they want their skin to look smooth and silky, not plasticky.

Ideally, clients will trust you. If they don't, and they're taking control, that's really your fault for not creating a relationship based on confidence. They'll respect your decision, because, after all - you know what you're doing. If you understand what your client really wants though effective communication and based on mutual respect, establishing confidence is much easier.


----------



## aliyawar (Dec 16, 2012)

onelove said:


> aliyawar said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks all...  I appreciate your opinions...but doesn't yielding to your clients absurd demands make photography "art"less...something inferior than art...no artist worth their salt allow someone else to play with their creativity...but again I understand,you have got to make compromises if you want to be in the business...
> ...



While their are always exceptions,if you've read history you surely know that the artists who went out of their way to create wonderful renegade art work are considered the gods of art while the "pros" who worked according to the norms(in most situations,sticking to the fantasies of their customers) are no longer known except by very enthusiastic art students...

Regards


----------



## Overread (Dec 16, 2012)

I thought history showed that many artists were jointly capable of being able to both:

1) Earn their bread and butter doing what the customer wanted

2) Doing totally their own thing in their own time (often being far more free to do this when they had more capital at their disposal - often as a result of being good at option 1) 


I think trying to separate the two into distinct approaches to photography (or art in general) is flawed since it assumes that people are only capable of a singular approach. It also ignores the fact that many high quality artists are often approached to produce work because of their artistic vision. Yes the client might dictate the budget and part of the content, but the artist is still the one who creates the final work.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

I always assumed that photographers wanted clients to pick them because if their own style, not so they could cater their style to clients.

There is also art photography and utilitarian photography.

(Yes I understand that both can be considered "art", as can everything apparently since the dawn of postmodernism)

Generally art photography is made for the sake of itself. It serves no other purpose than to be art.

Utilitarian is more like commercial photography, family portraits etc...

Art photography is generally, if it's good, going to be considered more artistic anyways hopefully it says something more than "look at John's adorable children in the wheat field."

That's just my take of the artistic stance of photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 16, 2012)

aliyawar said:


> onelove said:
> 
> 
> > aliyawar said:
> ...



many of the famous artists were only super famous after their death...and plenty of them died with very little money. 
some of the most famous sculptors and painters were famous because they were able to deliver not only the highest quality product, but also EXACTLY what the client had envisioned and asked for.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> many of the famous artists were only super famous after their death...and plenty of them died with very little money.
> some of the most famous sculptors and painters were famous because they were able to deliver not only the highest quality product, but also EXACTLY what the client had envisioned and asked for.



Van Gogh was so poor that he had to have his brother take care of him and support him because he couldn't get his art to sell.

And there has been some recent controversy on whether or not he killed himself.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

unpopular said:


> What if the client wants something that could harm your reputation?



Only a complete fool would take such a job...


----------



## texkam (Dec 16, 2012)

> What do you do when you have to choose between artistic freedom and client's satisfaction....which should be given more importance by a phototgrapher...


What is the ageement?


> I will solve your problem for you and you will pay me. You dont have to use the solution. If you want options go talk to other people. - Paul Rand


It's about communicating expectations, educating the client before hand and coming to an agreement. If you are being brought in as an artist, you are being hired to produce something to your vision. If you are being hired as an art or design professional, you are being brought in to solve a problem, not necessarily to make the client happy. If the client knows what they want and expects you to deliver it, you are being brought in as a craftsman.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

aliyawar said:


> What do you do when you have to choose between artistic freedom and client's satisfaction....which should be given more importance by a phototgrapher...



I'm puzzled as to why you even feel the need to ask such a question.

The defining aspect is money: You're being paid. Someone is giving you money to provide something _they're _happy with. In such an instance, your "artistic freedom" couldn't be more meaningless. The only time it _would _matter is if it benefits the result. If it doesn't. it has no place in the equation.

If I hire a contractor to build me a house with a sunken livingroom of 18", and he builds it at 24" because his "artistic freedom" tells him it looks better, he's not getting paid.

Period.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I always assumed that photographers wanted clients to pick them because if their own style, not so they could cater their style to clients.



I always assumed that photographers wanted clients to pick them because they want to get paid...


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled as to why you even feel the need to ask such a question.



Because it's so so soooooooo easy to "sell out" when next month's rent depends on it.

And I'm not even being sarcastic right now.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 16, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I always assumed that photographers wanted clients to pick them because if their own style, not so they could cater their style to clients.
> ...



Clients pick photographers that they feel can deliver what they have "envisioned" for their photographs.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> I always assumed that photographers wanted clients to pick them because they want to get paid...



Says the jaded man on the photography forum.

Hint: it's a lot easier to make money if you enjoy the way in which you are making money. /end hint

If someone doesn't like shooting weddings, how eager will they be to find weddings, and how nice will their product be?

Yeah they may make less money in another type of photography, but at least they don't dread getting up in the morning.

That's what I was referring to. Most photographers I know don't shoot things they don't like just because of the money. That's where lawsuits come from.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

onelove said:


> aliyawar said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks all...  I appreciate your opinions...but doesn't yielding to your clients absurd demands make photography "art"less...something inferior than art...no artist worth their salt allow someone else to play with their creativity...but again I understand,you have got to make compromises if you want to be in the business...
> ...



Quoted for truth.

If I hire someone to do a job; any job, what matters is _my _vision, not theirs. If they can't pull off what I want, or they believe that doing so, somehow, compromises their artistic "vision" or creativity, they are more than welcome to hit the road...


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 16, 2012)

aliyawar said:


> onelove said:
> 
> 
> > aliyawar said:
> ...



Most of the artists you are referring to weren't creating for clients either.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> Quoted for truth.
> 
> If I hire someone to do a job; any job, what matters is my vision, not theirs. If they can't pull off what I want, or they believe that doing so, somehow, compromises their artistic "vision" or creativity, they are more than welcome to hit the road...



But it's a double-edged sword. Do you hire someone whose style/vision/whatever is what you are looking for, or do you hire someone who you try to bend to meet your vision.

I'm not going to hire someone who shoots very posed family portraits to take candid photo journalistic style portraits of my family.

A lot of people on here say that the client shouldn't run the shoot because the photographer generally knows more about how to make good photos. That's what all of the newbs on this forum hear. 

If you already know better than the person you hired than why did you hire them?

What's the point of portfolios if the photographer is obliged to bow to the whims of the customer anyways.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 16, 2012)

As others have said, the key is knowing your client, understanding their wishes, knowing what they want, and knowing how well they know what they want.  

'Famous' photographers will get more latitude from clients, because presumably they're being hired for their artistic vision.  The client has seen their work and has faith that if they let them do their thing, they'll like the results.  More 'working pros' are hired because it's believed that they can deliver the shot the client wants.  

The key is clear communication.  Ask the client what they think or want, tell them what your vision is.  Most of the time you can actually do one of each and say something like "here is an alternate version, what do you think about this?"  Many times I've started a shoot with what the client wanted, got something they'd be happy with out of that, took not much extra of their time, showed them what I thought about the shot and got a 'wow, yeah, I like that much better!"  Sometimes you get the "I'll stick with what I wanted.  but thanks for the effort."  The key though is NEVER EVER make the client think you're giving them what they asked for, and then give them something different.  Communicate what you're doing, get the client to communicate what they're after, communicate any ideas you have.  

Honestly the worst thing you can get from a client is "you're the photographer do what you think is right!"  It sounds great to begin with, but then when you start showing them what you're doing, you realize that they actually do have something very specific they want, they just expect you to read their mind.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you have to have both. you have to find a photographer that already shoots (or is able to shoot) in a "style" that is within your vision as a client, but is also flexible enough to change how/what they do if the clients needs/expectations change. 
as a photographer, if you are only able to shoot under ONE particular set of criteria, then potential clients should be made aware of that. ultimately, if you are unable/unwilling to change how you shoot for a client, then maybe you shouldn't be taking clients in the first place. what you want to be at that point, is an artist who creates photographic art, displays it somewhere, and waits for the right person to see it and buy it.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> you have to have both. you have to find a photographer that already shoots (or is able to shoot) in a "style" that is within your vision as a client, but is also flexible enough to change how/what they do if the clients needs/expectations change.
> as a photographer, if you are only able to shoot under ONE particular set of criteria, then potential clients should be made aware of that. ultimately, if you are unable/unwilling to change how you shoot for a client, then maybe you shouldn't be taking clients in the first place. what you want to be at that point, is an artist who creates photographic art, displays it somewhere, and waits for the right person to see it and buy it.



That's what I mean. I'm not saying screw the customer. I just think that the"my way or the highway approach" is probably going to land the consumer a $50 Craigslist photographer over someone of higher quality.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



absolutely... shooting conditions can easily change, and can easily change what a client expects the image to look like. 
a good photographer should be adaptable. not just technically able to adapt to different conditions and styles, but willing to in order to make a client happy. a happy client is a paying client...and a referring client. and those are the best kinds.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Clients pick photographers that they feel can deliver what they have "envisioned" for their photographs.



Oh, I don't argue that point at all.

As a photographer, though, who likes to be hired and paid, I can honestly say that "why" someone hires me is secondary to me. 

"What would you like?"

"When would you like it?"

"Who'll be signing the check?"

Early on, I developed almost a portrait style of shooting musicians in concert. It's hard to explain, but the photos almost looked posed (without being so). I had a few jobs where I was hired because the clients wanted that type of look for their projects. More often than not, though, they had their own idea of how they wanted their photos to look. If I couldn't have pulled that off, it would've been my responsibility to walk away. I _could _do it, though, so I put my "vision" in my back pocket and deferred to theirs.

Why?

Because what they wanted me to give them is what mattered, not what I may have wanted to give to them...


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 16, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Clients pick photographers that they feel can deliver what they have "envisioned" for their photographs.
> ...



just to clarify in case my writing was not quite up to par...what i was saying was, I pick a photographer that can deliver what "I" have envisioned for the photograph i want. the photographers "vision" is all fine and dandy, and it might be close to mine, but when I am paying for the end product, i want it to be MY vision. I just want the photographer to make it happen.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> ... What's the point of portfolios if the photographer is obliged to bow to the whims of the customer anyways.


You well know that answer to that question: Because there is more to taking a photograph than just pressing the shutter release.  The client is also paying for the photographers professionalism with lighting and the other aspects of the photograph that he hasn't considered.  All a client is concerned with is the areas he has envisioned: A model sitting on a bar stool with a lot of leg showing, whereas the photographer controls the lighting, the shadows, the background, and so forth.  You know, the things that the 2-month "Facebook Pros" don't even know exist.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> But it's a double-edged sword. Do you hire someone whose style/vision/whatever is what you are looking for, or do you hire someone who you try to bend to meet your vision.



That would depend.

If I want a custom home built, and the only guy within 500 miles who builds stuff specializes in lawn equipment sheds, I'm going to expand my search. If there's a guy nearby who specializes in building garages, though, and all I need is the lawn equipment shed, he could easily get the nod. I

In all my years of shooting, I've had only a single client who completely accepted what I was doing, and the results I'd offered him, but that's because he was a guy in a tough spot. He'd just gotten out of prison, and he was trying to put his life back together. He's a dear friend, so I wanted to help him. I shot him for his website (personal trainer), and I did it for free. He completely deferred to my style and what I thought we should do.

Aside from that, though, _without exception_, every single client I've ever shot has had some level of input on what's being done and on how the results should look...



> I'm not going to hire someone who shoots very posed family portraits to take candid photo journalistic style portraits of my family.



Of course not, assuming family portraits is all the guy does...



> A lot of people on here say that the client shouldn't run the shoot because the photographer generally knows more about how to make good photos. That's what all of the newbs on this forum hear.



This is where the "starving artist/working pro" issue comes to light. If someone is paying me, they're buying the right to have some input. The newbies could probably do well to hear that, too.

I've never had a client "run the shoot". Ever. It's never happened. Anyone it _has _happened to has bigger issues than being able to satisfy a client, and probably isn't assertive enough to last very long as a professional...



> If you already know better than the person you hired than why did you hire them?



Again, I've never had a client who knew more about photography than I do. Ever. And, if I ever had, they never mentioned it, probably because they trusted that I had the skills to get the job done. Now, have they known more about their "vision"? Sure, but only because it's theirs. By hiring me, they trust that I will produce the results they want. How I achieve those results has never been a concern for a client of mine.

In other words, if I hire you to paint a wall white, I really don't care how you go about it, but that wall had damn well better be white when you tell me it's done...



> What's the point of portfolios if the photographer is obliged to bow to the whims of the customer anyways.



If you intend to be the arbiter of everything that's right and worthy in the eyes of a paying client, you're gonna' end up on food stamps. Seriously. They've hired you. You're working for them. While they need to trust that you can do the job, you need to accept that their vision is what they're paying for. Far more often than not, a paying client couldn't give a rat's ass what your vision is. 

It goes back to my statement about getting a wall painted white. If I want it to be snow white, the fact that your "vision" tells you it should be "eggshell" doesn't interest me in the least, and you won't be getting paid if it is...


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Says the jaded man on the photography forum.



Jaded? Why? Because I understand clients? Because I know how to make a client comfortable and want to hire me?

Because I was a staff photographer for a well distributed magazine for eight years?

Because I have album covers and DVD covers and extensive web use (paid for, by the way) under my belt of experience? Because I've made money and I've not made money, and I know that making money sucks less than n_ot m_aking money?

If that's what you consider to be "jaded", well, guilty as charged...



> Hint: it's a lot easier to make money if you enjoy the way in which you are making money. /end hint



That's not always true. I know a guy who's an extraordinarily talented motorcyle builder. He's an absolute artist, and there's a long list of people waiting to have him work for them. The problem is that he absolutely hates building motorcycles. He does, however, enjoy the Hell out of racing them.

It's easier for him to make money building bikes...



> If someone doesn't like shooting weddings, how eager will they be to find weddings, and how nice will their product be?



Not at all, and it would suck.

But I fail to see the point you're making...



> Yeah they may make less money in another type of photography, but at least they don't dread getting up in the morning.



And when "waking up" starts paying the bills, they'll be able to move out of Mom's basement...



> That's what I was referring to. Most photographers I know don't shoot things they don't like just because of the money. That's where lawsuits come from.



I've known professional photographers my entire life, and I've known plenty who've spent entire careers shooting things they hate shooting, simply because it paid. I've never personally met a photographer who's been sued, but I know plenty who's spent a lifetime doing the exact thing you claim is where "lawsuits come from"...


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 16, 2012)

Steve5D is one of those people that I seem to either completely agree with on a subject, or complete disagree with...I don't often read an opinion of his and think "meh, I can kinda see that".  
I have read through Steve's comments on this post. twice. 
this is a "completely agree" moment for me. 
artistic vision is great. but when you go to work at a job, you do what the boss wants you to do, how the boss wants you to do it, if you expect to get a paycheck. photography is no different when you are taking paying clients. they are your boss. find out what they want, and deliver it.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 16, 2012)

I was a corporate attorney once.  I made a crap load of money.  I hated my job.  I worked 60 hours a week and spent the other 60 waking hours trying to recover and de-stress.  If you hate photography because you have to shoot a shot a certain way, try a job that actually sucks.  Or just take a few days off and shoot things however you want to, on your own time.  Joe McNally will pay his assistants and models out of his own pocket sometimes because he has an idea that he knows no client is going to let him try.  Zack Arias will occasionally agree to do weddings FOR FREE if you let him shoot it however he wants, no questions asked.  But those guys, if anybody is hired for their 'artistic vision', it's them, they know that when a client is asking for something, you give it to them.  When they want to play, and take their vision wherever it may lead them, they know they better be doing it on their own dime.  If the client want you to be creative, then that's sort of a bonus (but again, what 'be creative" usually means in client speak is actually "read my mind").  

Yes, photography is hard.  yes, clients can occasionally suck.  It's still a fantastically rewarding job compared to most anything else you could do.  Do your job, give the client what they are paying you to give them, and be glad you're being paid to do something that doesn't completely drain your soul, like most people do.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> I was a corporate attorney once.  I made a crap load of money.  I hated my job.  I worked 60 hours a week and spent the other 60 waking hours trying to recover and de-stress.  *If you hate photography because you have to shoot a shot a certain way, try a job that actually sucks*.  Or just take a few days off and shoot things however you want to, on your own time.  Joe McNally will pay his assistants and models out of his own pocket sometimes because he has an idea that he knows no client is going to let him try.  Zack Arias will occasionally agree to do weddings FOR FREE if you let him shoot it however he wants, no questions asked.  But those guys, if anybody is hired for their 'artistic vision', it's them, they know that when a client is asking for something, you give it to them.  When they want to play, and take their vision wherever it may lead them, they know they better be doing it on their own dime.  If the client want you to be creative, then that's sort of a bonus (but again, what 'be creative" usually means in client speak is actually "read my mind").
> 
> Yes, photography is hard.  yes, clients can occasionally suck.  It's still a fantastically rewarding job compared to most anything else you could do.  Do your job, give the client what they are paying you to give them, and be glad you're being paid to do something that doesn't completely drain your soul, like most people do.



I was going to copy just portions of that post, but the reality is that everything about it is perfectly, well, perfect.

I actually laughed out loud, and almost launched a ham and swiss quesadilla through my nose when I read the bold text above, because it's so absolutely true...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

Art is about understanding the universe, not meeting a clients demands.

the more I think about this question, the more a non sequitur it is. Creative professionals are not artists, not in the same sense as the question implies, in the first place.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Art is about understanding the universe...




Then there are truly no artists in this world...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

No successful ones anyway, ever. Art cannot ever be finished.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

The problem is when a photographer starts thinking that a client should be concerned about his "art".

If I'm paying you money, I don't have to care about your "artisic vision", but you'd damn well better care about _mine_...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

I agree 100%. A creative professional is a conduit for the client's vision who may not have the skill to do it themselves - heck, they may not even have the articulation.

But this doesn't mean doing a substandard job because they "wanted it" chances are if they're asking for something lousy, you're not appreciating what they need. How often does a client come back to you after they've left with a poor product? It might seem like they got what they wanted, but chances are - they're almost as displeased as you are.

I'm not saying every job is going to be successful, but i think it's all too easy to say "there's no accounting for taste/the customer is always right" than it is to understand the client's needs.

At a design position I had once, I was given a a magazine to layout. I was getting paid a decent bonus for it and was the first big project I had to myself. I felt like I had to make a lot of compromises, but by the next issue the project was pulled from me. I hemmed and hawed about how I gave them exactly wat they wanted, but in the end - it looked like crap, and it was my job to make it look good, that's all that mattered. I have nobody but myself to blame for loosing that project.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 16, 2012)

As is often the case, the first responder to the thread nailed it and the thread should have been locked right then.  And yet, there are 4 pages.

If you're being paid, you do what you are paid to do.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

But I'm saying, it's just not that simple.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

unpopular said:


> But I'm saying, it's just not that simple.



But it certainly can be...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

You've never had "problem clients"?


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

unpopular said:


> You've never had "problem clients"?



Honestly?

Ummmm... No, I haven't. I can honestly say that I've never had a client who was upset with how I went about shooting, or with the results I'd provided them. They told me what they wanted, I assured them that I could deliver it, and that was that. They didn't care about anything beyond the results that they paid for.

Now, are there things I would've done differently if I was the one footing the bill for the shoot? Would I have tried to get a different look, perhaps? Absolutely. But it was their dime, so what I would've done was absolutely meaningless.

This is moving away from the original question, though, which was regarding which should be considered more important; the aritistic freedom of the photographer or the satisfaction of the client. It's the latter. Period. When someone is paying you to shoot a portrait, or to shoot anything, you're not an artist, you're a contractor. As such, there's only one person whose opinion matters, and that would be the opinion of the person signing the check.

As photographers, we often rely on word-of-mouth advertising from our satisfied clients. Well, anyone who thinks "word-of-mouth" advertising isn't also used by _*un*_satisfied clients, as well, is delusional. If you tell me that a previous client was unsatisfied because they didn't appreciate your "vision" or want to give you "artistic freedom", there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of me ever hiring you.

So, you see, it really _is _that simple...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

I suppose I am coming from a different perspective, and that might have something to do with it.

I've had clients who literally sat next to me and told me where to place elements. Ofcourse, I complied - as an employee I wasn't really authorized not to - and in that sort of situation, I'm not sure I would anyway. The result looks like if a business owner with no advertising or graphic design experience put it together, because, after all, it was. All I did was navigate the software.

But these people *never* are return customers. They leave, they seem happy with what they have but they _never_ come back. Ever. The only conclusion I can determine is that for some reason they weren't happy with what they got.

The reason why these customers exist is because myself or my employer had failed to establish a relationship of trust. Perhaps that comes naturally to you, and that's awesome. But the fact that we are discussing this says to me that for a lot of people it's not always the case. If you don't convince a client that you know what you're doing and are capable of their vision, they'll tend to hijack and the results are inevitably poor. That's the bottom line of what they get, and they may not entirely know why - but they are dissatisfied. I suppose that the customer is always right, the problem is knowing what the customer actually wants.

When I was doing professional creative work, it was an ENTIRELY different process than doing fine art work. The two are pretty much only similar in the tools I use, and that's where it ends. So I don't really think there is a whole lot to discuss.


----------



## texkam (Dec 16, 2012)

As I mentioned earlier, we're basically talking about 3 different things: fine artist, creative professional, and craftsman. Clients need to understand which one they are hiring/commissioning. ...Expectations! Most talented shooters practice the "craft" of photography. This is what most the posts here seem to be referring to. These folks will often work with an art, or creative director. Many times that is the client, which is where most of the  problems occur. Creative photographers should be hired for their unique way to convey the client's vision. They are the creative director and should have a high level of trust. If not, you're wasting your money, work with a craftsman. A fine artist as mentioned above is more concerned with themselves and their ongoing quest to understand, explore, and visually speak about the universe. Of course these are not strictly down the line categories, for often there may be overlapping involved.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> That would depend.
> 
> If I want a custom home built, and the only guy within 500 miles who builds stuff specializes in lawn equipment sheds, I'm going to expand my search. If there's a guy nearby who specializes in building garages, though, and all I need is the lawn equipment shed, he could easily get the nod. I
> 
> ...



Like I said, I don't mean that you should screw consumers. I just mean that the "customer is right" only goes so far before it begins to affect the integrity of the product.

The photograph is wholly creative. When I hire someone to build a house, it doesn't take a whole lot of creativity on the builders to measure ad make things fit like they should. It's not exactly subjective when there's a huge gap at the bottom of a door

I mean, maybe I'm just delusional, but I read a story about a woman who hired a wedding photographer who was a total *******. He took the reigns and basically became a wedding Hitler. 

The bride hated him. But the photos came out gorgeous. It might have been a fluke. The bride might have been unusually forgiving. I don't know.

Generally, from what I've seen, the general public  doesn't usually have the knowledge to realize that sometimes their vision just won't work or won't look as great as they think it will. They aren't art directors. If they were the. I'd say "sure, go ahead and pose like that. I accentuates your arm fat but you're the boss." and then generally when I finally explain to them why or how something won't work they generally either shrug or agree. Sometimes they have VERY good ideas that I hadn't thought of, as sometimes they have VERY bad ones. It's up to me to distinguish the two to give them a good product. 

I understand that sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do, but I'll only do that in reason before I have to stop and say "I'm sorry but I don't think I'm the guy for the job."

I'd rather take pictures of someone who knows what the skill and product is worth, than someone who is willing to take a $50 coupon deal from "Happy Shutters Photography."

But then again, I'm also not in danger of being in the poor house so that makes it a little easier to have some choice.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 16, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> As is often the case, the first responder to the thread nailed it and the thread should have been locked right then.  And yet, there are 4 pages.
> 
> If you're being paid, you do what you are paid to do.



And the first step is the consumer knowing what they're paying for and appreciating it.

If I had a client who was a jerk and didn't trust me, and they wanted more shoots, I would probably pass depending on how belligerent the client is. Usually, for me, the money isn't worth the heartburn (and that's not just pertaining to photography. I apply that method of reasoning to everything)

But as I said I'm not scrapping for my meals so I have that freedom.


----------



## manaheim (Dec 16, 2012)

texkam said:
			
		

> As I mentioned earlier, we're basically talking about 3 different things: fine artist, creative professional, and craftsman. Clients need to understand which one they are hiring/commissioning. ...Expectations! Most talented shooters practice the "craft" of photography. This is what most the posts here seem to be referring to. These folks will often work with an art, or creative director. Many times that is the client, which is where most of the  problems occur. Creative photographers should be hired for their unique way to convey the client's vision. They are the creative director and should have a high level of trust. If not, you're wasting your money, work with a craftsman. A fine artist as mentioned above is more concerned with themselves and their ongoing quest to understand, explore, and visually speak about the universe. Of course these are not strictly down the line categories, for often there may be overlapping involved.



Yeah this is a great point, actually.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 16, 2012)

I still don't see where there's any ambiguity here.

The question in the OP was clear, and it was concise. Which is more important: The photographers "vision" or the paying customer's satisfaction.

Anyone who chooses the former has no business trying to charge people money for anything...


----------

