£3000 portraits....Can only be one place!

since when have white background shots been distinctive - wonder how much venture paid to have the advert ;)
 
So, which one cost £3k? Makes a nice headline, but typical Mail story failing to substantiate this.

And personally, I have no intention of cutting my prices to such low levels. ;)
 
jon ryan said:
So, which one cost £3k?
Click to expand...

Thats the thing, it was probably none of those, and only one customer out of thousands. As you said, nice headline.

But in the comments underneath people have claimed to pay £1400 for photos etc. Its madness.
 
daily mail and all of the readers/subscribers on one island far far away please !

and no - I don't mean Australia :D
 
jon ryan said:
So, which one cost £3k? Makes a nice headline, but typical Mail story failing to substantiate this.

And personally, I have no intention of cutting my prices to such low levels. ;)
Click to expand...

Probably the cleaning and floor repaint after having the cow in the studio.. :lol:
 
"latest fad"

Really? About three years ago a retired portrait photographer was giving me tips on how to get the best out of dogs. He also mentioned that the kind of person that has portraits taken of their dogs is the type of person that will spend ludicrous amounts on their pet.

"Anyone paying £3k or anywhere near is an idiot. I am a semi-professional photographer, I always have work and I charge about 1/3 of what Venture and similar companies do, (I only take payment when customers have seen and are happy with the images to make sure they are happy) and I'm making plenty of money "

Erm..... if you're constantly in work, and you're making so much money, how are you only a semi pro?
 
jon ryan said:
So, which one cost £3k? Makes a nice headline, but typical Mail story failing to substantiate this.

And personally, I have no intention of cutting my prices to such low levels. ;)
Click to expand...

Quite adgreed,never get out of bed for less than 5k :D
 
specialman said:
And what a headline!! 29 words.... my chief sub would have a heart attack if we were running headlines that long. Totally goes against the rule of headline writing :lol:
Click to expand...

Not really up there with the Liverpool Echo's report on how Ian Callaghan ran Queens Park Rangers ragged in 1970:

SUPER CALLY GOES BALLISTIC, QPR ATROCIOUS.

...which is also a bit long, but genius writes its own rules.
 
Dan_H said:
Thats the thing, it was probably none of those, and only one customer out of thousands. As you said, nice headline.

But in the comments underneath people have claimed to pay £1400 for photos etc. Its madness.
Click to expand...

It is not madness if you make living from photography. :)
 
Obviously people are prepared to pay Venture's high prices otherwise they wouldnt still be around
 
I once went for an interview for a similar company and the interviewer really hovered around selling the images.

I got the distinct impression she didn't think it was worth it but was asking if I thought it was worth it...

...my answer: "if people are willing to pay it then it's worth it for them!"

Personally I think anyone paying that amount is off their head and maybe a bit of "I'm better than the other companies"

Also...those 3k purchases are most likely very large acrylic prints.
 
Last edited:
Also...those 3k purchases are most likely very large acrylic prints.
Click to expand...

This.... venture shoots are very cheap as a loss leader, prints are expensive.

Lovely bit of PR for venture, even if, in order to find some sort of sensationalist rubbish spin on it, they did go for a high figure that one customer spent on prints...
 
itsdavedotnet said:
This.... venture shoots are very cheap as a loss leader, prints are expensive.

Lovely bit of PR for venture, even if, in order to find some sort of sensationalist rubbish spin on it, they did go for a high figure that one customer spent on prints...
Click to expand...

I presume you're not given the images after the shoot so any prints come from Venture themselves? License to print money once the shoots taken place.
 
Oooh, touched a nerve.

Bad journalism is bad journalism.

Just ask Mrs Brooks...
 
jon ryan said:
Not really up there with the Liverpool Echo's report on how Ian Callaghan ran Queens Park Rangers ragged in 1970:

SUPER CALLY GOES BALLISTIC, QPR ATROCIOUS.

...which is also a bit long, but genius writes its own rules.
Click to expand...

Yep, a good headline, later reworked for the Celtic trouncing in the cup I believe. The one in this story is just plain pap.
 
£3000 isnt all that crazy when you figure into the price of a custome frame, art gallery glass and then the mounted print with matte.

You are paying for art that will last.

oh and I wouldnt pay anything for the shots in that thread personally.
 
rgrebby said:
£3000 isnt all that crazy when you figure into the price of a custome frame, art gallery glass and then the mounted print with matte.

You are paying for art that will last.

oh and I wouldnt pay anything for the shots in that thread personally.
Click to expand...

Yeah but their prices for prints are exceptionally high, they make about 1000% markup against their cost. In that case we can assume the same for their product that is sold for £3000.
 
It's not so much the high price that people have an issue with, it's the very aggressive sales tactics they use.

"We'll be deleting them after today, so you need to make your order today".

There's some stories on mumsnet (a scary, scary place in itself) of people taking out loans to pay off £2k+ worth of photo's that they felt compelled to buy, and lying to their husbands to hide the costs. There seems almost an attitude of if you don't pay these sort of prices, then you clearly don't love your children all that much.
 
HMansfield said:
It's not so much the high price that people have an issue with, it's the very aggressive sales tactics they use.

"We'll be deleting them after today, so you need to make your order today".

There's some stories on mumsnet (a scary, scary place in itself) of people taking out loans to pay off £2k+ worth of photo's that they felt compelled to buy, and lying to their husbands to hide the costs. There seems almost an attitude of if you don't pay these sort of prices, then you clearly don't love your children all that much.
Click to expand...

There's a word, in fact several of them, to describe salespeople like that. Not surprisingly a lot of them begin with 'C'.
 
Wish me luck, I'm going to my "pet photo" viewing tonight :p! Got given a gift voucher for a shoot and free small frame. I thought "why not?" as I was a bit curious about the way they do things and might get a nice photo out of it. I am dreading having to go through the hard sell though :(. One thing I can tell you for sure though is I won't be spending £3000! I'd much rather give my business to a local tog who will be more reasonable about prices and prints.
 
Always makes me laugh at how little photographers value photography - no wonder we have problems sometimes with clients' lowly expectations :bang:

£3,000 and even £1,400 is 'madness' apparently

Madness? :thinking: In a typical Venture studio that requires a £150,000 min outfit to kick off with and several staff members in prominent high street locations - is that really madness requiring a T/O of easily £10,000pwk and more to make any profit at all ???

IMHO madness is what I saw in Barnsley yesterday. I had lunch with wifey and we walked past, then into a local art gallery. Most paintings were for sale ranging from around £300 to over £2,000 - surely all you need for that is an easel, stretched bit of canvas, a few brushes and some paint ??? No studio required, virtually no overheads, no other equipment of any kind - and looking at some of the art for sale I'd have to say no talent was required either - now THAT is madness :cuckoo:

Dave
 
Having high overheads has nothing to do with the value in a product.

I see nothing unique about venture, nothing exceptionally good, and no reason (other than their need to make profit) to sell their photos at such a price.

I agree you need to make money to at least cover costs, but I also believe in fair pricing and like I said above, I don't see how they are selling products for so much, getting people into debt for photos.
 
I can't see where you feel its not a fair price - they charge it , people pay it cos they want to buy the product - what's not fair about that ???

Now if you really want to talk about unfair pricing lets discuss 'designer' clothing - Armani sell t-shirts for £100, Asda sell them for £5 - they may even be made in the same sort of factory in India (or wherever is cheapest now)

Venture makes a very small % profit on their sales compared to guys working from home selling 10x8"s for £15

Its not unfair, its just different

Dave
 
I suppose i think its madness just because i wouldn't feel comfortable charging that for one piece of work.

Fair enough if the customer is buying lots of prints, canvas etc. I also agree you need to cover your costs.

I suppose at the end of the day if people are happy or daft enough to pay those prices for something they could easily get for a lot less then that is entirely up to them. People obviously do pay those prices or venture wouldn't still be in business, so they must be doing something right.
 
i cannot wait until our twins arrive and yes I will be taking them to venture.. as Mrs Smith (obviously showing) get hounded by the sales agents weekly....

I am looking forward to being a most difficult customer...... basically I should paint my garage white tomorrow, rent some constant lights and bit of perspex and job done...

I am seriously hoping the "free worth £25" image is per kid, not per shoot....

However it is a moot point as Ryanyboy has the gig for our shoot (he doesn't know this yet) and any and all of the (exteneded) Norfolk Mafia are welcome to assist....(and shoot)
 
Phil Young said:
I see nothing unique about venture, nothing exceptionally good, and no reason (other than their need to make profit) to sell their photos at such a price.
Click to expand...

But that is the *only* reason to *sell* your photography.

Nothing wrong with being an amateur photographer for enjoyment, nothing wrong with supporting charities or NGOs if that is your thing by gifting images to support projects. But if you sell your photography then you do it to make a profit.

How much profit you *need* to make depends on your overheads. Want to appease your wife because you (for your hobby) just blew £1800 of savings on a 70-200mm - then you need to make £2000 to cover the lens and some shoes for her.

Have a wife and a family to support as a full-time pro then you need to make a working wage from it.

Run a business, part of a franchise, and have employees and then the amount of profit you need to make to support multiple individuals and families is significant.

I agree you need to make money to at least cover costs, but I also believe in fair pricing and like I said above, I don't see how they are selling products for so much, getting people into debt for photos.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a fair price for a photograph. It is worth as much as the individual person purchasing it is prepared to pay. You could put someone into debt with a £50 sale, a £3000 sale to others is a weeks disposable income.

Nothing; nothing Venture do is illegal. You and I might feel uncomfortable about the sales tactics, their photographic style (which BTW a lot of photographers have copied) might not be to your taste but no-one is forced to take a session - and the sales tactics are well known, reviewed on the web, and I doubt anyone visiting is completely ignorant of the facts.

Sorry but whilst I have never taken a Venture session (and I have been given a few - car purchases etc), and I no longer shoot white background portraiture, I'm grateful for them for (a) re-creating the market for family portraiture in the UK from the terrible Olan Mills style that was out there and (b) being a reference point for what professional photography costs.
 
meonshore said:
But that is the *only* reason to *sell* your photography.

Nothing wrong with being an amateur photographer for enjoyment, nothing wrong with supporting charities or NGOs if that is your thing by gifting images to support projects. But if you sell your photography then you do it to make a profit.

How much profit you *need* to make depends on your overheads. Want to appease your wife because you (for your hobby) just blew £1800 of savings on a 70-200mm - then you need to make £2000 to cover the lens and some shoes for her.

Have a wife and a family to support as a full-time pro then you need to make a working wage from it.

Run a business, part of a franchise, and have employees and then the amount of profit you need to make to support multiple individuals and families is significant.



There is no such thing as a fair price for a photograph. It is worth as much as the individual person purchasing it is prepared to pay. You could put someone into debt with a £50 sale, a £3000 sale to others is a weeks disposable income.

Nothing; nothing Venture do is illegal. You and I might feel uncomfortable about the sales tactics, their photographic style (which BTW a lot of photographers have copied) might not be to your taste but no-one is forced to take a session - and the sales tactics are well known, reviewed on the web, and I doubt anyone visiting is completely ignorant of the facts.

Sorry but whilst I have never taken a Venture session (and I have been given a few - car purchases etc), and I no longer shoot white background portraiture, I'm grateful for them for (a) re-creating the market for family portraiture in the UK from the terrible Olan Mills style that was out there and (b) being a reference point for what professional photography costs.
Click to expand...


:agree: completely :)

Dave
 
Venture is a reference point for way overpriced photography.

Paying 3k for photographs is ludicrous in my eyes. Someone that's rich probably thinks nothing of it
 
DG Phototraining said:
Always makes me laugh at how little photographers value photography - no wonder we have problems sometimes with clients' lowly expectations :bang:

£3,000 and even £1,400 is 'madness' apparently

Madness? :thinking: In a typical Venture studio that requires a £150,000 min outfit to kick off with and several staff members in prominent high street locations - is that really madness requiring a T/O of easily £10,000pwk and more to make any profit at all ???

IMHO madness is what I saw in Barnsley yesterday. I had lunch with wifey and we walked past, then into a local art gallery. Most paintings were for sale ranging from around £300 to over £2,000 - surely all you need for that is an easel, stretched bit of canvas, a few brushes and some paint ??? No studio required, virtually no overheads, no other equipment of any kind - and looking at some of the art for sale I'd have to say no talent was required either - now THAT is madness :cuckoo:

Dave
Click to expand...

You kinda had me until your last paragraph, when you randomly decided to, rather hypocritically, suggest that while photography has value, paintings do not. A photograph doesn't have a value because of the equipment used; the value lies in the skill of the person operating it. Put an unskilled person into Venture's state of the art facilities and you're likely to end up with uninspired, bland results, because art is not about the tool, but the skill of the one who wields the tool. I'm not suggesting all art is worthwhile, hell I can rant all day about people like Emin and Hirst, but those of that ilk aside, the value of art lies in the rarity of the high level of skill required to produce the work. If drawing, painting and sculpture were easy, art would have no value. But they're not. True excellence in artistic pursuits requires years of dedication.

It's a shame that a photographer fails to realise the value of their own creativity and focuses instead solely on the tools.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top