Shoot and Share Photographers - You Either Love Them or You Hate Them

Shoot and Share Photographers - You Either Love Them or You Hate Them

Over the last couple years, more and more photographers are turning towards a new business model of sharing the digital files with their clients rather than requiring them to place print orders to generate revenue. The traditional business model photographers who rely on sales of prints to make money are furious with the growing popularity of "shoot and share photographers" even going as far as "declaring war" against it. Here's what photographers need to know.

What is a "Shoot and Share" photographer?
It is a photographer who has chosen to turn over the edited digital files to their client so that they can share the images as they would like and print them wherever they wish.

Why are so many photographers upset with this business model?
They feel it cheapens the industry and cuts into revenue sources that photographers have been relying on for years. Traditionally wedding or portrait photographers set up meetings with clients after the photos have been edited and use the time to sell prints of many sizes to them. An average sales meeting for traditional photographers will yield them anywhere from $500 to $3,000 extra income from the sale of prints, canvases, albums and other photo related items. Photographers relying on this extra income to maintain their business are growing upset at the number of photographers offering the "shoot and share" model making it too easy for clients to receive the digital files and print them on their own.

Fstoppers Shoot and Share Photographers Wedding 1

Are they ruining the industry?
Over the last few years as the "Shoot and Share" model of photography has continued to grow a number of outspoken photographers have taken to the blogging, email newsletters or Facebook to pronounce their disgust with the model. Often they will say that photographers who follow the "Shoot and Share" model will be out of business in just a matter of years or that they care less about the clients because they don't want to sell them beautiful prints and canvases for their homes and instead just push them to Walmart to have products made. "Shoot and Share" photographers are told they are ruining the photography industry and that if they keep it up soon we will all be out of business. John Mireles, who calls himself "The Photographer's Business Coach" even went as far to say in a blog article published on August 10th that he was "declaring war" on one product and its innovator. In the article the author says those who follow the "Shoot and Share" business model are, "not making's a hobby at best and recipe for failure at worst." He goes on to say, "Now if you're a photographer who just likes to shoot the wedding and then wash your hands of it, that's your prerogative and I respect that. It's just important to know that you're leaving a significant amount of money on the table." He goes on to explain in the article that he has yet to meet a photographer who is rolling in the cash because he sold a bunch of prints and that the reason photographers following the traditional model charge as much as they do is because it is necessary to "operate sustainably."


Can't we all just get along?
Now before I go any further, this article is not about trying to sway photographers to choose one model of business versus another. I say pick whichever you feel works best for you. My reason for writing this blog post is because over the last year I have seen a number of contentious battles between the two sides. In fact, I was once a member of a great group of photographers on Facebook but, because they constantly battled over this idea that photographers cannot be profitable as a "Shoot and Share" business model I decided to leave the group and in turn have lost daily contact with a number of friends there. I was just tired of photographers slinging mud at each other and being disrespectful in the way they handled different attitudes towards running their photography business. Ultimately we all want to do the same thing, which is bring happiness to our clients while making money to continue operating our business successfully.

Here's a business term worth knowing.
What I hope all photographers reading this article learn is the business term that was coined by a professor at the Harvard Business School Clayton Christensen called "disruptive innovation." According to Wikipedia, "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market."

Fstoppers Shoot and Share Ikea Southwest

Examples of companies that shook up their industry.
When IKEA entered the furniture retail business it shook the industry up and had other furniture stores reevaluating how they manufacture and sell their product to compete or differentiate themselves. When Southwest entered the airline market with its low cost, no frills, pick your seat way of doing business, other airlines took notice and some even tried to compete, some went out of business while some re-innovated their own marketing strategy to continue operating their business in a more traditional sense of the way. There are a number of examples of companies that have used disruptive innovation to shake up an industry.

One visionary who was incredible at doing this was Steve Jobs. For those old enough to remember, he took Apple from a struggling computer company that was competing with the behemoth Microsoft and turned it into a consumer device company. The iPod and later the iPad were disruptive innovations that turned personal computing on its side and revolutionized the technology industry. Then came iTunes with the ability to buy individual songs from artists rather than having to purchase the whole disc of music, then apps (disruptive innovation to the software industry) then came their new line of laptops that didn't even offer a CD/DVD drive thereby pushing users to do their file saving using cloud services.


How about Netflix? or RedBox? Look what those two companies are doing to the video rental industry. Are they not making money because they are doing it differently (which happens to be the argument of the traditionalists)? Not at all. Both of these companies have found ways of getting a product consumers want into their hands without the need to build one of the more traditional brick and mortar retail stores stocked with product and employees.

Is it really worth going to war over.
The way I see it is that the "Shoot and Share" business model is a disruptive innovation and for that reason has caused such a visceral reaction by some who might be susceptible to losing business because of it. Sadly, some who feel threatened think it's best to go on the attack, "declare war" and try to sway as many photographers as possible to their side of the battle field. Often they will ask you to sign up for their email newsletter, "Like" their Facebook page, or buy their coaching so they can show you the "correct" way to operate your business. Does fighting with one another do anyone any good? Does it really help to sling mud, call each other names, and waste our time writing or reading blog posts that are full of hate? It's sad to see our industry is filled with so much hate. I understand why bloggers/coaches write this kind of stuff, it gets a reaction. It gets shared and liked, they get applauded, they feel good for the week as they see the number of site visitors climb. In the blogging world we call it "click bait."

Why waste time fighting when you could be growing your business instead?
So, do photographers really need to waste time kicking, clawing and screaming at one another? Absolutely not. Find a model that works best for you and OWN IT. Let me give you an example of a business that has stuck to its traditional ways and is thriving by marketing this difference. The financial company Edward Jones has been around for a long time. Their business has always been to hire a representative for an area, build a small office for them right in the heart of town and then make that representative available to locals for help with their financial services, 401k rollovers, savings accounts and more. Many financial companies started out the same way but as the internet made it possible for people to trade stocks online most financial service companies followed suit and began offering the same service. Edward Jones however held steady. They did not change their business model. Instead they decided to do what in the business terms we call "disrupt the disrupter." They began marketing themselves as some place different. Edward Jones knew their business model, who their customer is, and what that customer considers valuable. Rather than trying to publicly fight other financial companies telling them how they are doing business all wrong, Edward Jones has separated themselves by showing people they are simply different and if you like that business model that revolves around a face to face interaction and a handshake versus a mouse click than you are a perfect fit.

Fstoppers Shoot and Share Edward Jones

In conclusion
If you believe that selling prints to your clients is the best way to serve them then by all means stick to your beliefs and do what you love! Find a way to market yourself so that those who value those services find you and together you'll make a perfect match one for another. Stop wasting time drawing battle lines and instead focus your energy on your business. The same goes for those who enjoy the "Shoot and Share" business model. Sure you can highlight your differences but don't try to tell traditional photographers that they don't know what they are doing. Many of them feel comfortable with their structure of doing business and have been doing it for sometime. If someone tries to waste your time with hateful speech about one business model or another, move on, hell, run as fast as you can away from them. Instead look for those who will help you understand the benefits of each model and then choose the one that works best for you. Lastly, don't sit comfortably thinking your business model will stay the same forever - remember disruptive innovation is always changing things - and in order to be successful you need to be on top-of-your-game knowing what is new and how to adopt it into your business, differentiate yourself from it, or die.

Here are some links to articles I have referenced in the article.
Harvard Business Professor - Clayton Christensen
Responses to Disruptive Strategic Innovation
The Photographer's Business Coach
Reinventing Your Business Model
Disruptive Innovation Explained - Video

Trevor Dayley's picture

Trevor Dayley ( was named as one of the Top 100 Wedding Photographers in the US in 2014 by Brandsmash. His award-winning wedding photos have been published in numerous places including Grace Ormonde. He and his wife have been married for 15 years and together they have six kids.

Log in or register to post comments
Previous comments

Is it 2001 again? This issue was big then when I got into the digital side.

For me, prints are a way of delivering a photograph to my clients. If they go get them printed at the 'cheap place' the prints don't come back looking good because the 'el cheapos' don't care about profiling for print or setting black levels. They have a generic auto level setting that is made for p&s and cam phones to make them look good.

I wouldn't want my hard work shooting and editing my clients to be ruined by crap prints. So I make sure they get the best quality prints properly profiled and looking the best.

If they want shots to share online, thats easy. They get a series of 960x640's at 2dpi, watermarked.

Thanks Trevor. Really learning a lot from you.

The saddest part about the "shoot and share revolution" is that most clients never print the images on their cd's and instead they've been trained that social media sites are enough. Their beautiful images are collection dust instead of sharing priceless memories.

That is so true Tricia. I know a few of my friends who paid like $1000+ for a shoot and share photographer and had all good intentions of printing their images and creating an album. 8 years have passed and they are still sitting on a disc. That photographer was never called back for any family photos... ever. That's 8 years worth of shoots from that family if they had built a relationship with them over that first shoot.

That's what happens with most shoot and share photographers. There's no connection with the client. Most sessions are set up via email and galleries are online. The only person to person interaction is during their session/wedding. When you bring a client in to view their images and see the excitement on their faces it truly is priceless. Then comes the best part, deciding where they want to display these amazing images. Shoot and share photographers are from an era of disconnection and instant gratification and it works for some but not for me. I want to know about my clients, I want know what makes them laugh and what makes them cry. I want them to call me after a dinner party and tell me about how their friends and family gushed over their canvases or prints. I love it, its why I love photography and what brings my clients back time and time again.

Tricia I'd have to disagree that Shoot and Share photographers are "from an era of disconnection." Also just because they run a different business model doesn't mean they don't want to know about the clients, share experiences with them, be invited to a dinner party etc. That is quite silly to even think that. A business model is nothing more than a way someone wants to run their business - it does not transform their way of being. In order words, those characteristics you list there can subscribe a photographer in any business model.

I only speak from my experiences and didn't categorize all shoot and share photographers. Most of my photographer friends are shoot and share photographers and most have little to no interaction with their clients. They take the images, load them online for their clients to choose, and burn a cd to mail. I'm not bashing anyone, its a time of disconnect and instant gratification. Its what society has become but this is the one thing I choose to hold onto. It didn't start that way for me by any means, I used to be shoot and share photographer. But when my clients cared more about sharing their images on social media sites than wanting to display them on their walls something had to change.

Tricia what you are describing sounds a lot like shoot to burn. And your right that the client is not served well and a relationship isn't built, which leaves money on the table.

Shoot & Share photographers provide a complete service and beautiful products, which includes sharing the photos a building a long relationship with clients. Their business is not dependent on product sales because they get paid for the service up front.

Shoot to sell photographers may also focus on building relationships with clients, but the difference is the focus on product and print sales. If a photographer loves the sale and has clients to sell to, then do that.

Actually, you did categorize all shoot and share photographers from the wording of your comment and it's actually quite offensive. ("Shoot and share photographers are from an era of disconnection and instant gratification and it works for some but not for me.") Maybe you meant to say "the shoot and share photographers I've interacted with ... " but it didn't come out that way. I make it a priority to get to know my clients right from the very first point of contact with them. I've become friends with many of my clients long after the session has ended or the wedding is over. I've gone to networking events as a guest of a former bride to help support her small business, I've had many happy hours with clients, dinners with clients, and even had some invite me over for family 4th of July bbqs. Just this week I received a beautiful hand-written note in the mail from one of my June brides inviting my fiance and I out to dinner because she wanted to celebrate OUR engagement with us. Just because shoot and share photogs are not "getting to know" their clients through an in-person sales consultation does not mean they're not getting to know their clients at all or striving to provide the best possible service to them.

No I meant it how I said it. I was talking about society. Are shoot and share photographers not from an era of disconnect and instant gratification?? I don't believe society was like before shoot and share photographers. 10-15 years ago cell phones were just coming out as well as the internet. People met with sales professionals face to face and relationships were build. I'm really glad it works for you but its not something I choose to do and its not for everyone. Best of luck to you and your business, sound like your business is doing very well.

I don't even sen them a CD lol. We just share a dropbox folder and BOOM they just have everything synchronized to their hard drives. I agree with others that you can be a personable or impersonal as you'd like to be, and it's not how many times you meet the person, it's the quality time you to share with them.

What is even worse is that without a printed album, their children and grand children will most likely never see the images. CDs get lost and/or degrade. Hard drives crash and most folks are terrible about backing up their files. Facebook most likely will not be around when the offspring are old enough to enjoy the nostalgia, as social media sites tend to fade in popularity after the next 'new thing' comes along (MySpace anyone?).

I am a shoot and share photographer with a twist. I explain to my client's that under a certain size (8X10 or 8X12) there is no reason to go through me for printing. I let them know that a 16X20 or larger print will look a lot better if I do it. (I have examples that came off my Epson printer in various fine art papers against a good lab in my city) I send my clients to that lab for the smaller prints.

I must say that most of them come back for the larger prints. I shoot their family images and I see the prints in the homes.

I like to share my images on Facebook or other internet portal since I have friends all around the world. I can't share a print with my friend that moved to Sydney, Australia when that friend doesn't want a picture of me and my bride on his wall ;)

my .02

As a consumer, I simply cannot see myself hiring a photographer who is not "Shoot and Share." Primarily because to my eye, there is no or not a big enough difference between a $0.19 4X6 from Walgreens and an expensive print from the photographer...

As a consumer who prefers the "shoot and share" business model, can I ask what you are willing to pay for a typical portrait session (be it family, children, etc...) receiving 30-40 images?

I've never really looked at it, honestly, so I don't really know... Plus a bunch of factors come in to play when weighing ones options... My point was that from the outside looking in, all other variables staying the same, I would pick a "Shoot and Share" photographer over one who does not do that, even if it meant paying a premium price for it.

Stop by my studio and we can show you the print quality difference :)

Tys T. I will put together a test and see if people can tell. I am curious to find out as well. I'll post the results in a future article. Thanks for the awesome idea. Let me know if you'd be interested in doing it together.

Smugmug did this test years ago

I keep a twelve print image folder of the same picture from the popular online and local bargain shops plus our two local labs and our lab of choice. Never has a client picked their favorite image from any of the bargain shops. Majority has always been with our lab.

I started with photography pretty much at the end of the analog era, the time where the first digital cameras came up but they weren't really good yet and every professional photographer was convinced that digital can never be as good as analog. So, we shot film and in the studio I sometimes worked at everything was analog. Prints were handmade, black/white as well as color prints. And that's when it dawned on me. That's why prints are always so expensive! Because it's a lot of work! They are handmade! And of course you can't give out the negatives, it was the only way to make real prints and the originals couldn't really be duplicated (not easily at least). Of course as a photographer you would keep the ONLY originals of the photos you took.

Then pretty soon digital took over and instead of negatives we had files. Files can be duplicated a million times if you want. And all you had to do to get a print of a file is, you had to email it somewhere, worst case burn a DVD and bring it somewhere. With digital files you don't really have many ways to put much work into getting a print. So to me it seemed natural, that I can't charge anyone for prints. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I really don't see a reason making money with prints. There is no value I'm adding to the process.

When I see photographers advertising sessions for $30 and then read in the fine print that for every print you have to pay $15 and for a single file $30, I cannot help myself but think people get ripped off. I think this is giving people a wrong idea of where the value lies in. Imho, the value we give them as photographers lies in the photography and our editing style, not in the prints.

Shoot and share has become a reality for many reasons. Shoot and share because #1 clients are way more tech savvy these days and almost all will pop this question before booking you, "Do you sell the disc only" I do not know how many times I have been asked this question. At first I declined, holding guard of that cd I thought was worth gold. But as time goes on I realize this is the future of what buyers are wanting, they simply want to be able to share more than print these days. That's just a fact! You can thank the whole social media movement, where most just want an awesome profile pic/header and to show off to friends/family via the internet. I finally put myself in the buyer seat and decided next year I too will join the shoot and share. But it will not come cheap. I plan on raising my pricing structure to accommodate what I would make for those prints and will offer only certain amt of images per package, making the ultimate package the whole nine yards. I will also give a complimentary 8x10 with cd so they will see the difference in prints from me vs crappy printing in hopes maybe they will appreciate the difference and refer back to me for further print sales, but if not, no worries because I will make sure I charge good and plenty per package for that cd. Change is here, buyers run the market and if you cannot accommodate the buyer, you will be left in the dust with your pitty party, complaints and all, while others skip away with your potential clients.

For the people who don't value artwork for printing, yes, they'll ask about the disc. Personally I can count the clients who've asked about digital prints on ONE hand. Maybe it is because my business model of high prices discourage the Walmart shoppers who only want to have bragging rights on Facebook.

i do both now.. before i was a shoot and share, and i dont have the problem with that, clients will be back to me asking for a lay out of an album if they want to.. some want prints so i introduce prints to my business...

btw i charge more for a session, and i earn more from this...

Keep in mind, when it comes to prints, 9 times out of 10 the client will only care about the album. The 6x4 and 8x10s going behind a piece of glass hanging on the wall or sitting on the coffee table isn't so important as long as the print looks good. While we can tell the difference between a professional lab print and supermarket print, the client usually can't and doesn't care. If you can convince them your prints are worth the extra, that's great but what happens when they go to their friends house and their coffee table is covered in framed images of their wedding and your client finds their friend had them printed at a fraction of the cost of one of your images because their photographer sold them the disk. Imagine what that's going to do to your reputation . . . .

Wow, this post could not be more off-base. You have COMPLETELY 100% missed the point of everything that is going on right now and the conflict and drama behind it, especially of John Mireles' post. This is not a "Shoot and Share" vs "Everyone else" war. This is a "David Jay and his PASS/ShowIt lackeys" vs "Everyone else" war. There are a lot of shoot and share photographers, probably even most of them, who find David Jay, his businesses, and his ideology unethical and bad for both photographers and their clients. In fact, most of the people who oppose PASS have absolutely no issue with photographers who want to give the files away and be done with it, but they want those photographers to use non-DJ products to do so, because we're all sick of seeing new photographers who don't know better lining the pockets of someone who is actively trying to hurt them.

David Jay has gone to great lengths to make everyone opposed to him look like "old school" photographers who oppose the shoot and share model, who are worried about newer photographers undercutting them, and who and with this post, you have played right into his hands and given that outright lie credibility. I have yet to meet any established, successful photographer who is worried about shoot and share photographers "undercutting" or "devaluing" their business. That's laughable. We may think these photographers are hurting themselves, and are probably doomed in the long run, but that's the exact reason why we're not worried about them hurting our business. If anything, we feel bad for them and want to help them, because we have seen firsthand how profitable product sales can be and how much it can benefit both the photographer and the clients. We want to see these photographers succeed and profit, because just like misery loves company, so does happiness and success.

You also suggest DJ and his model as some kind of Steve Jobs-esque visionary, rather than the shady, hypocritical, obsessively dishonest person that he has proven himself to be time and again over the past near-decade that he has been in the business (or, more accurately, not been in the business, since he hasn't shot a wedding in many years). I can only assume that you must be part of the PASS/ShowIt tunnel vision groupies, because no one who has been in the industry for more than a few years is that oblivious as to why people are really opposed to DJ and his products. He has proven that even he doesn't believe in what he is preaching, as he lambasts photographers for making up prints, while he is bringing in a hefty sum himself on PASS Prints (when photographers using PASS sell prints, David Jay keeps 50% of the sale as commission, and the other 50% of the sale is paid out in "credit" to the photographer that can only be used on David Jay's products).

If anyone reading this, including the author of this post, is unaware of why the vast majority of the established, successful photographers out there oppose David Jay, I urge you to do some research. Ask about it on any forum or message board. The stories are endless. I blindly supported him for a long time, until one day the evidence was so overwhelming I finally had to stop and say "This guy is bad news, and we shouldn't support him."

If you don't want to sell prints or products, fine, don't sell prints or products. That's your decision to make. But I beg of you, don't support DJ and his products or his ideology. It's bad news. And don't buy into his bullshit lies that the people who oppose him are dinosaurs or clueless or greedy or out to get you. Believe me, it is VERY much the opposite. We're trying to help you and see you succeed.

WOW! So I just searched the archives and found other articles by this author and others that were basically just advertisements for David Jay and PASS. Not once have they ever reported on any of the many many many controversies surrounding him, and any article written about him has been overwhelmingly promotional. It's very clear that fstoppers has a connection with DJ and has a vested (probably financial) interest in promoting him and his products. Really shameful. Take anything said here with a grain of salt, folks.

Stacy here at Fstoppers we are given the freedom to write articles about whatever we wish. We are encouraged to share with the readers things that have helped us in our business, software, gear, bags, tips etc. I wrote an article in the past (March 2013) on PASS because it had just launched and was quite relevant in the news and I loved using it. Matt Kennedy wrote an article on PASS just recently about how he uses it to share photos at weddings with the couple and guests. In both of these articles I don't recall any praise being thrown at DJ. We talked about the product and how we were both using it our business, it was not an article about DJ. As writers here at Fstoppers we don't use our platform to try and bully others. I realize other blogs, newsletters, Facebook pages might like to do that because they know it will cause a stir and drive lots of traffic to them. While we are not always perfect here, and each writer has his/her autonomy to write whatever they wish, I'd like to believe that we instead choose to travel the high road.

....and here we go again. This article was written without a mention of a product or name in an effort to keep things more objective and unbiased. It was written to help photographers understand business terms and namely how to apply them to our business. It goes over examples including one that is successful following the more traditional model. Yet here you show up trying to turn it into another internet bullying session against DJ. Tell me what exactly about my post could be "more off-base?" Did you honestly read it? Stacy I bet you have been in business for a number of years and probably have great skills at running a business. Why not use those skills for the betterment of others.

I do use my skills to better others, and by saying that you clearly show you know nothing about me or my participation in this industry. Anyone who did would laugh their head off at your statement. You have openly stated that you support DJ and PASS in previous articles, you've even written entire articles promoting them, and this is obviously another promotional piece to support it. I think it's pretty shameful that you are using your platform to promote a person and a product that is actively taking advantage of new photographers and taking money out of their pockets. I find it so very sad that new photographers blindly put their faith in people who laugh all the way to the bank as they exploit new photographers for financial gain. And then, when people like me try to stand up for them and protect them, people like you discount us as "bullies," because dismissing and censoring ideas you disagree with is S.O.P. for the Showiteers. If standing up for my colleagues and calling out people who try to hurt them, censor them, steal their profits, prevent them from exposing themselves to a wide variety of ideas and business models, and ruin their businesses makes me a bully, then I will wear that label with pride.

You are correct I don't know anything about you. I am not saying that to make you upset, the industry is big though. As I stated in my previous comment I wrote an article about PASS when it was launched. I did not write about DJ in that article (at least that I remember - you are welcome to read it here. This post here that you guys are commenting on never mentioned a product. Only you and Rick in the comments even brought a product into the light. Please go back and read this article again - it is not about PASS it is not about DJ.

Trevor, really, you are sticking to the claim that this article isn't about DJ and PASS and those who disagree with him? Puhleaz.

Rick it is not worth your time or mine to continue going back and forth like this. Read the article. There is some good stuff in it. Much success to you in your business.

Fair enough, and my apologies.

You don't have to specially say "pass" or "david jay" to realize this article is about him. Shoot and share is his baby, is it not? Your second paragraph sets the tone for the entire article. You're clearly in the DJ/Shoot and Share camp, and that's fine, so be it, but don't get offended when people call you out on it.

For the record, shoot and share is idiotic and people buying in to it must not like making a profit.

I have never hidden my love for giving clients digital files - it is what I would want if I hired a photographer so it is also what I will give to my clients. I can use any product to do that and in this article I don't talk about any. Even in one of my comments I listed a number of different options available to photographers. I am puzzled why you guys continue to think this article pushes a product or person. I discuss a concept. I discuss different business models. I give examples (none of which are photography businesses.) The article title says it all, "Shoot and Share Photographers - You Either Love Them or You Hate Them."

Your article isn't directly pushing a product or a person, but the underlying tone is there. Just reading the title I immediately thought it was an article about David Jay. Why? Because of the words 'Shoot and Share.' and referencing an article someone else wrote about "going to war" against it. Don't act surprised when the obvious similarities and references are there.

You don't "give" them the files, you price it correctly so that handing over a DVD of images and thus losing print sales is compensated. Of course if you're not doing that and just giving a DVD and not compensating for a loss of sales then, well that's on you. Clients want the moon too, are you going to give it to them? I give a DVD but I price accordingly so that I'm still making money off of that DVD.

I wanted my negatives when I got married but guess what, I didn't get them! Why, because photographers used to actually hold on to things like that and not give it away for free. Eventually I will not provide a DVD in my package but it will be an add on for people. Just like it used to be.

That stinks that you weren't able to get the negatives for your wedding. It was great chatting with you Rich. Let's meet up sometime and we'll continue the conversation. I think it will be easier for all of us to understand one another doing this in person.

Three things.

1. Trevor is a personal friend of DJ, so an objective article is not to be expected.

2. Contrary to what is said in the last paragraph above, DJ *does* tell traditional photographers that their "time is over". See the screen shot in the referenced article here: Dissenting opinions are not allowed in the PASS forum. I know quite a few people who have been banned.

3. Check out the follow-up article at, on the profits you're leaving on the table with PASS if you let DJ do your print sales, or don't do print sales at all.


Three things.

1. No where in this article do I mention the name of a product or person. This article was written to be about as objective as it can be. It talks about different business models, asks people to get along (stop hating) and then lists a few models of companies including one still successful doing things the traditional way (Edward Jones.)

2. I don't care what DJ has said in the past. This article is not about him as much as you want to believe it is.

3. Contrary to your belief and the belief of the article you link to, Shoot and Share photographers will do print / album sales. We don't like to worry ourselves with the smaller prints (4x6, 5x7, 8x10) but often anything larger, canvases or the albums we will encourage the client to let us help them with the order. It is different in each persons business but this is a pretty common practice.

Three things Rick

1. The author of the article you post to Rick has a personal dislike for David Jay and biased opinion on business models. SO an objective article is not to be expected.

2. Contrary to your belief dissenting opinions ARE allowed as long as they stay respectful, which often they do not.

3. That representation on losing money if you don't offer prints is actually so far off base its silly. I am a shoot and share and I am making just as much, actually more than when I offered prints. I just added my average print sales to my package prices. What the author FAILS to take into account is that we do not give away our files for free we charge accordingly for our time and skill upfront. Oh and DJ isn't doing anyones print sales. And fact is DJ isn't the one who decided to add the print feature, it was photographers who requested it.

But we're not allowed to have any dissent with the constant message that "shoot and share is the best way" or "shoot and share will make print based business very tough" or perhaps "In the olden days, when print based photographer used to massively mark up products on the back end..." or how about "As Shoot & Share photographers take over it makes a sales driven photographer just look like a schmuck marking up this stuff to high heaven."

That's the hypocrisy right there. It's disrespectful to those who DON'T do shoot and share. But non shoot and share photos are supposed to just sit back and take it? And no I didn't put words into DJ's mouth. These are pull quotes from the PASS Facebook Group....

SO how are we supposed to react? Tell me...I don't think there is any over reaction here. War was declared long before John's just isn't recognized as such. I consider being called a "schmuck" disrespectful. In any arena.

It's pure hypocrisy.

Jay, I don't think anyone is telling you can't have a dissenting argument. Even in my post I highlight how companies are disrupting the disrupters. But they do it with class. Edward Jones did not go out guns firing telling other financial firms they were doing it all wrong and they are going to declare war against them. Instead they found their strengths and are highlighting those. If Shoot and Share photographers are saying nasty things about those who want to sell prints then absolutely they should be told to knock it off. As I state in the post above, "Now before I go any further, this article is not about trying to sway photographers to choose one model of business versus another. I say pick whichever you feel works best for you." I continue in another part, "So, do photographers really need to waste time kicking, clawing and screaming at one another? Absolutely not. Find a model that works best for you and OWN IT." In the end, I just hope that people use blogs, Facebook and other platforms to try to help one another out rather than knock each other down. This goes for everyone including DJ.

That was directed at Timothy's second counterpoint. Not anything you said Trevor.

Jay there are plenty of people that have had dissenting opinions that wew not booted, its when those people start going the direction of "You are not a REAL photographer if you shoot and share" or using PASS will put you out of business, or people who use PASS know nothing about running a photography business. Then there are those who have their questions answered and STILL want to insist on telling PASS they NEED to change their model. Or the people who want to complain about the 29 fee but don't wan to listen to ways to offset that fee. No one was booted just because, they were always booted because they couldn't let it go.

But again, It's not ok for anyone to say that, but it's ok for DJ to say the quotes above? Again....hypocrisy. And the reason for John's article and all the backlash.

This point is glossed over, skipped and ignored by friends and contacts of DJ...I surmise because there is no counter argument. It's true, it's been repeatedly stated by him and its a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I was kicked out of the PASSpremier group twice for having dissenting opinions, asking questions about possibly creating a tiered pricing model, disagreeing that Shoot & Share is the only way. DJ personally told me that I was running my business wrong, for which I was offended and strongly disagreed.

Kicked out.

I've never once been kicked out/off of another site for providing feedback, but DJ has proven time and again that he isn't a fan of constructive criticism, he even made a video/wrote an article about how positive feedback is the best (and only) sort of feedback that he feels adds value.

I can certainly see the point of this for portrait & wedding photographers, but for my commercial work, I'd rather charge a much higher fee and then give my clients a perpetual license to the photos. That way they can use the photos however they like (per the usage terms of the license) and I have captured the extra income upfront. That seems like a friendlier practice than "nickel & diming" my clients each time they want to use the photos for a new ad campaign, billboards, etc.

I think the lesson for "shoot & share" photographers is that you need your clients to understand your lost income and charge them appropriately upfront.

Nordstroms is not competing with Wal-Mart nor should you feel like a shoot and burn bride and groom would even be your change and some stay the different from the pack and make your mark...great read!

I charge a session fee, charge for the digital copies of the images (whether it be on a disc or that comes with printing rights, but I also offer really fancy prints. I find that most of my clients appreciate getting the rights to be able to print smaller prints on their own and having the convenience of having me do the bigger stuff for them. I guess you could say I'm a mixture.

More comments