Event (Dance Competition) Question

First, I just want to make clear than I am not a pro photographer. Also, there are a couple of threads here related to my question, but I didn't want to hijack either of those threads so I started this one.

Here is the background information: My 13-year-old daughter is involved in competitive dance. This past weekend, she had her 5th competition of the "season". While spectators do not have to pay to get into these events, each studio (IOW, the parents) has to pay a fee for each routine they enter in the competition. The rules regarding photography in the previous competitions were all the same:

1. No video recording - the studios do not want their choreography stolen by others. IMO, this is a reasonable restriction.

2. No flash photography - the dancers are typically on an elevated stage and they don't want them to be blinded and/or distracted by a barrage of camera flashes. IMO, this is also a reasonable restriction. (It is also my justification for buying some nice fast lenses. )

However, when we got to the competition this past weekend, the first thing I noticed was a sign that said no video or still photography. We went in and sat down and I noticed that a lady (who I correctly assumed was a pro) was set up on an elevated platform aligned with the middle of the stage taking pictures. I went out to talk to a couple of the staff from the competition organization just to get a clarification on the photography restrictions. After tossing out a few flimsy "reasons" for their policy which I politely challenged, they admitted that the primary reason for the still photography restriction was the fact that they had arranged for a photography studio to take pictures of the event that they were offering for sale on CD that same day. (For the record, you could only purchase video DVDs or still picture CDs for routines from your dance studio.)

I feel compelled to say that especially since I have been frequenting this board, I try to make sure that I respect the work of the professionals, stay out of their way, and not do anything to jeopardize their earning potential. I honestly would rather not take a picture than mess with someone's livelihood. Nonetheless, I was a bit disgruntled by the restrictions at this event. In order to give me some perspective on this situation, I would appreciate hearing the viewpoints of those of you who do this kind of photography for a living. Here are some of things that bothered me:

1. This whole dance competition thing is a bit to much "Little Miss Sunshine" for my taste. However, my daughter enjoys it and I try to look at it as not being much different from a teen being on a traveling baseball team. But, it does cost us quite a bit of money and I don't like feeling like they are trying to extort even more from me.

2. I am always reading on these boards that the person behind the lens is more important than the equipment. Should a professional who has all the advantages of experience and a prime location from which to shoot be concerned with the photographs of any of the parents? Shouldn't the quality of their work create the demand for their photos rather than the banning of all other cameras?

3. When I take my own pictures, I generally do a pretty thorough job of post-processing. I don't think I'd be happy with some less than optimum resolution JPEGs straight out of the camera.

In retrospect, it wasn't that huge of a deal. I already have a ton of pictures from the previous competitions. I just look at it as an opportunity to practice in what I find to be a challenging set of conditions. In the end, I got to enjoy watching my daughter dance without a camera in front of my face. I guess it was more just the principal of the whole situation that bothered me. What do you all think?

I was asked cover a Cheer/Dance competition becasue they refused to ask back the photographer they used last year. The reason was that he tried to tell parents that they couldn't take pictures of thier own kids.

They are "little miss sunshine,. I have one coming in the end of this week and it's like the twilight zone!
It is also a money making machine for which they try to maintain a strict control of everything.

Some/Most restrict or prohibit photography. Your pics cut into there profits as far as they are concerned (they get a cut from the official photog)

Many however get "overruled" by the local parents who show up in force with cameras anyway.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5474226
They are "little miss sunshine,. I have one coming in the end of this week and it's like the twilight zone!
It is also a money making machine for which they try to maintain a strict control of everything.

Some/Most restrict or prohibit photography. Your pics cut into there profits as far as they are concerned (they get a cut from the official photog)

Many however get "overruled" by the local parents who show up in force with cameras anyway.

Our daughter has danced for several years but this is the first year that she has been involved in competitions so it is all new to us. I guess what caught me off guard is not one of the previous 4 competitions (NYLA, StarQuest, Starpower, and one other) we've been to had any restrictions on non-flash photography nor were they selling photo CDs. However, they all were selling video DVDs. The Talent on Parade competition was the first one we've been do that forbade the use of still cameras. Ironically, I don't think their photo sales were going very well. Twice during the afternoon they made announcements that they were discounting the cost of the photo CDs. Initially they knocked $5 off the price and later the upped it to a $10 discount. (I'm not sure what the original cost was.)

The other thing is that in my limited experience, I have found these events to be somewhat self-regulating when it comes to camera use due to the lighting conditions and the restrictions on the use of flash. Most of the parents that come up and ask me how my pictures are turning out have already given up because they can't capture anything worthwhile without using flash. In fact, I kind of wondered if letting parents try (and mostly fail) to get good pictures on their own wouldn't have actually led to increased photo CD sales. I think people might value the service more once they see how hard it is to do it themselves.

As a professional who covers dance events (among others) I thought I'd weigh in here.

We have certain dance events that we cover on a yearly basis. We have a pretty decent rep for quality work and many parents skip purchasing at other competitions to buy from us.

These aren't the buyers we're worried about. They are regular clients that we see on a yearly basis.

There are also other parents who will never buy from any dance competition, for whatever reason. Again, these aren't the people we're interested in.

However, we are very interested in converting as many of the group who are sitting on the fence as possible to client status. Among these are the parents who will try to shoot their own images and may even succeed, to a point. If they find that they are unable to shoot images themselves, then they just may come see us.

The competitions we shoot at do not allow video or still photography. There is a professional videographer there as well as us. Consequently, we are the only outlets for images, whether still or video.

Realistically, I don't know how many more sales we're getting because of the restrictions. However, as a pro, I'll take any bit of extra gravy that comes my way.

In addition, we don't pay a percentage. The reason is, we assume all the risk. Contrary to what some may think, this is not a license to print money. We show up with about $20K worth of camera & computer equipment at each event that needs the mortgage paid each month. I know what my costs are and just because I grossed $40/hour doesn't mean I made a dime. I may have just covered the mortgage on the equipment and paid the assistant.

If I pull in a thousand bucks for a weekend's worth of work (a typical Minor League hockey tournament will require about 50 man hours, I'll shoot Fri evening, all day Sat & all day Sun, I'll have an assistant on Sat/Sun to sell, postprocess & print), I've lost my butt.

We have given consideration to the heads of the event for a purchasing credit to be used against an order from us, say $50. We've also donated magazine subscriptions to various school libraries, which also works as a tax write off for us.

On the odd occasion, we can make decent money but, on average, it rarely does more than break even for the year.

We see our event photography mainly as two things:

1) Cashflow, which keeps the business & the bank happy;
2) A medium to long term visibility investment whereby when it comes time for family, grad, wedding, glamour, whatever photography, you'll give us the call. We already know that's working.

If parents were allowed to bring in cameras, I'd stop shooting the event. How long would it be until one of them decided to become an entrepreneur and start undercutting prices? We see it happen all around us, and not only with event photography.

Get over it.

Parents shoot at gymnastics meets all the time and when they realize their images won't have the quality of mine, they buy mine. They still shoot theirs, but they still buy mine.

I would NOT undermine the sales of an onsite professional and I don't offer mine for sale when a pro takes images. I also don't anticipate that they will try to stop me from taking pictures. Neither the notices posted or tickets (there never are any) indicate no photopgraphy. They do make announcements about no FLASH photography.

Perhaps dance is different, but seriously do you really feel threatened by parents taking pictures in the same venue when you have better access to angle and event? If you do, get out of the business.

bwolford wrote in post #5481069
Get over it.

Not sure who that's aimed at but, if it's me, a little less attitude will go a long way.

bwolford wrote in post #5481069
Perhaps dance is different, but seriously do you really feel threatened by parents taking pictures in the same venue when you have better access to angle and event? If you do, get out of the business.

Yes, I do feel threatened. Any time my sales drop I try to find the cause & rectify the situation.

Case in point: We've covered a local high school basketball tournament for the last 4 years. One out of town team always spent around $200 at our table. Last fall the team shows up and, along with them, a parent with a 40D and 70-200 2.8L IS. Guess how many images we sold to that team?

Case #2: We've covered high school basketball zone finals for the last two years in the local university venue. We know about how much each team will spend, on average. One of the teams has a parent with decent Canon gear who is always shooting. Guess how many images we sold to that team?

Case #3: We cover a lot of minor hockey in the area. One out of town team has a parent who stands on the players bench & shoots the games. Guess how many images we sell to that team?

There are other examples, but these 3 will suffice.

In each of the scenarios above, their "angle & access" is as good, if not better (hockey) than mine.

BTW, the answer to the above 3 questions is zero.

I shoot highland dance competitions, 9 dancers on stage at a time (3 different categories of 3 dancers). I don't even attempt to sort and upload images at the competition. I pay more attention to being visible and making sure viewing cards are handed out to the dancers and parents do they can visit the online gallery. If a parent wants to take their own pics I'm OK with that. They are nearly all using P&S and won't get a crisp image due to the notorious shutter lag that haunt P&S. If they want a quality image they can buy prints from me online.

I get the dance associations to include the gallery URL and my information in an email and printed newsletter to the dancers for extra awareness. Life is too short to impose photography restrictions at kids' competitions. We're not talking pro sports here.

FeXL wrote in post #5475846
If parents were allowed to bring in cameras, I'd stop shooting the event. How long would it be until one of them decided to become an entrepreneur and start undercutting prices? We see it happen all around us, and not only with event photography.

My thought on this is that I have no sympathy for anyone if you stop taking pictures because I think restricting others from doing so means their child may not get in the shot their parents are wishing for because you simply can not cover every single kid from every dance.

I understand restricting photography as a means of keeping order and limiting distractions. But restricting it to allow one photographer is not a legitimate reason to me. I think if your selling it should be from having better quality and that does sell.

FeXL wrote in post #5482062
Not sure who that's aimed at but, if it's me, a little less attitude will go a long way.

It was and I agree, your attitude stinks.

Take better pictures and offer a superior product and you will sell. I do think it is reasonable to expect a restriction on access (i.e. your example of a parent getting bench access and you don't. Parents should never be allowed on the bench or on the playing field, sidelines, etc. Your contracts should give you exclusive access, if they are not, that's your problem.

I find that a parent from the bleachers or fan areas will never get the quality of shot that a profession will with better access. Perhaps you need to concentrate on securing exclusive access and not limiting fans in the stands.

Either way, good luck. I'll be in the stands with my IIN and 70-200 IS USM shooting my kid.

The only time I get arsey when shooting an event is if someone else tries to use my equipment. I have had people try to use my staging to gain a better viewpoint and people asking me if I can print their pictures using my computer and dye-sub. The one that really annoys me though is at black tie events. There's no decent background so I set up a drop, then Mrs Point+Shoot tries to take the picture of her friends over my shoulder whilst I'm working.

I have to agree with FeXL, you have to protect your patch and promote your product.

At a black tie event I have two bodies (£1200 each) each with a lens on ( say £1200 combined), a laptop for previewing (£300) and another for post process (£600) 3 Metz flashguns (£400 each, one is a spare) and a dye sub printer (£1700) plus whatever stock I take.

This represents a considerable investment so I would reason that having made the investment and taken the trouble to turn up (at my own expense) then to have exclusivity for the photography is not an unreasonable expectation.

This is a subject that is a sore spot on both sides of the street. I am an event photographer and I specialize in Gymnastics, Irish Dance and Ice Skating events. At every single event that I shoot, there are parents, grandparents, coaches and others that come in with their cameras, both p&s and the upper end Nikons and Canons, and try to get pictures of their little johnny or susie doing their thing. Since I am always invited in as the event photographer, I shoot the whole event and I am the only one that is allowed on the floor/stage/ice rink to shoot the pictures. Sure, everyone else will be able to get pictures, and yes bwolford, there are some parents with kits better than mine out there as well. However, I have found that it all washes out in the end. The bottom line is the pictures that I take are from better angles because of where I can get to, versus where the others can get to. I offer CD's to the parents etc... of everything that I shoot of their children and invariabley there will be some that will not buy because they shot with their own camera. Then, they go out to the site and buy a print or tow from me because of the different angles. Most however will purchase the CD because of the reputation I have with other meets etc.

The important thing is that I don't begrudge the parents etc to shoot what they want. I even move out of the way for them most of the time so they can get a shot. you know, it's amazing how many of those parents will come up at the end of the meet and order a CD?!

I am a professional photographer there to take pictures. I do so in a professional way with professional courtesy. Honey always draws more flys than vinegar.

Regards,

sidx001 wrote in post #5484761
The important thing is that I don't begrudge the parents etc to shoot what they want. I even move out of the way for them most of the time so they can get a shot. you know, it's amazing how many of those parents will come up at the end of the meet and order a CD?!

I am a professional photographer there to take pictures. I do so in a professional way with professional courtesy. Honey always draws more flys than vinegar.

James, your approach is exactly how it seems to me this issue should be handled. I have no doubt that situations like FeXL shared happen. And I have witnessed how intrusive, or perhaps unaware is a better word, people with cameras can be on the photographer hired to shoot an event, wedding, etc. I just don't see how it does anybody any favors to intentionally create an adversarial environment. At this Talent On Parade competition, they actually had some thug looking guy patrolling the stands and hassling people over the use of their camera phones.

Here is another thing that I find curious. As I mentioned above, my initial impression was that the photographer was just holding down the shutter button and spraying away when the dancers were on stage. (I could see light from the LCD panel on the back of the camera on her face as the screen flashed on and off while she was shooting.) In any event, I assumed that the pictures on the CD would be JPEGs at something less than the highest possible resolution, with a fair amount of compression, and with only in-camera post-processing. I honestly didn't think I'd be very happy with that type of file. However, later at home I thought that maybe I had been unfair to the photographer and too hasty in my assumptions. So, I went out to their website with the intention of ordering some photos if I could find some good ones of my daughter. However, their website looks like it is about 1/4 complete and their aren't even any sample galleries to look at. I found a link to get to pictures from various events, but it looks like the most recent postings are from about 1 month ago. When I tried to go to our event, I was presented with a form to fill out for access to the event and given a message that it would be 4 to 6 weeks before a gallery would be uploaded if there was enough interest. I would think that if they are truly worried about their stream of revenue, they have more important things to consider than parents with cameras. JMO

One more thought, with the ever increasing number of amateurs with decent camera equipment (not to mention the explosion in the use of devices like camera phones), it is just going to get harder and harder to stop people from taking pictures at events. If I was a pro in this field, I certainly be looking for alternatives to having a monopoly on an event to differentiate my product. Thank you all for sharing your opinions and insights.

I thought it was valuable and helpful to the thread that FeXL came and shared his POV, and he did so in a way that was in no way offensive...

So let's take in the info offered, and tone down the personal conflicts here please.
This is not a popularity contest, the information is telling it like it is. There is no cause to create conflict.

On topic, I will reiterate my point from my previous post.

It is not the pro photographer on site that has jurisdiction in the venue over who can and can not shoot,
It is the venue itself and more so, the client renting the venue.

If you are not allowed to shoot, it is because one of those entities has made this decision.
The decision often is related to the Pro photographers success, and thus there cut of that success,.
But again, the photographer can not make such a decision.

I have a bit of a different twist on the subject. This past weekend I was hired by 5 parents to shoot their kids at an equestrian event. And yes there was an official photographer and videographer at the event. I really didn't give it much thought because I was hired directly by these parents to shoot both still pics and video of their kids (I do both, without an assistant). Well, when I showed up Saturday morning promptly and set up my 25K+ worth of equipment I was ran off by the promoter who stated he would not allow ANY one to shoot at his events besides the "official" photographer and videographer. I was a bit surprised as I was only there to shoot for the people who hired me. I have mixed feelings about this. I'm aware the photographer and videographer pay the promoter for the privilege of shooting his event, but I'm also aware of that the participants pay in excess of $1000 each horse to compete in the event and feel they should have to right to hire a private shooter if they want (me for example). I can definitely see the need to restrict "over the shoulder" freelance shooting but in this case I think it was a bit overly restrictive.

My two cents...