Re: Wedding photography cont.(long)

[LDAEnt@xxxxxxx]

First of all, the 1/22/96 message list was quite large compared to previous
ones.  Is this Metadiscussion stuff going to cost me more money for download
time? ;-)

Thanks to everyone for their words of encouragement on my stereo package.

George T> "I was at a local "bridal show" today next to a professional
photographer
showing my 3-d pictures (slides from a recent wedding) to the public. There
was a lot of interest.."

Going to the shows to exhibit is how I started my marketing.  I too found it
to be lots of fun to have professional photographers look in wonderment.
 Lots of interest from the public too, many questions.  But no sales.  And it
costs me $300 per show.  I did two shows and got one sale.  I don't do shows
anymore.

>"They want to get an album and perhaps a huge print for their weddings.
 Anything that deviates from these traditional lines is viewed as a gimmik of
some sort and it not taken
seriously. "

True, true, true. 
My next step is to add a display option of a conventional album and stereo
card album all in one.  Not difficult to do, as you merely take a
conventional album and have every other page be flat, and the other ones
stereo.  This way when you are looking at a two page spread, the left one is
displaying one or more conventional photos and on the right page is two
stereo cards, all relating to the same event in the wedding.  There is no
viewcard holder available to put into a album , so I'm off again to make one.
 This approach should break down more "gimmick" barriers.
  My last wedding I emphasized the ability to get conventional enlargements
from stereo negatives.  I received a decent sized order for 5" and 8" sq.
conventional prints (and I still have the original negatives).  This may
work.  
An added promotion that I use is to offer a stereo camera for the customer to
keep using for a lifetime of stereo pictures.  I tell them (truthfully) that
the stereo wedding package is just the beginning of a family heirloom.  I
currently use the Nimslo to sell them, and I am getting very good feedback.
 They are pleased with the results and the fact that all of their pictures
came out!  I find that this camera is perfect for a non stereo person to use,
truly point and shoot.  I just tell them to take "people pictures", not
scenics.  It makes very nice quality prints.

Eric G.: >"That's why I'm trying to research getting a practical,
maneuverable
twin-rig going. I think we've got to shoot the 24 x 36 mm format to make
prints practical (economical)"
 This would be a great step, but for weddings specifically what I really want
is a good medium format (6 x 6) stereo camera with interchangeable backs (not
a twin rig), then I can get those biiiiggg enlargements people want from the
stereo neg's that I want.  Until then I find the classic 50's stereo cameras
quite good for this purpose.  Lightweight, good quality, simple, adjustable,
and plentiful.  The square Realist format is very good if the print making
industry would just recognize it. ;-)
  
Currently, you can't take advantage of the budget pricing on wedding photo
processing with a Realist format negative, but that's OK, just price your
package according to your cost, as everybody is on the same playing field in
stereo wedding photography.   One thing a stereo package has over
conventional:  you get lots more hardware for your money with stereo. 

Anybody been eyeing those Russian 6X6 SLR clones (Kiev 60) for twinning?  Put
base to base they may work. Probably heavy though.  


Alan Lewis


------------------------------