Ventura photography, Woodseats - does anyone know the prices?

[lara joyce 10]

we have been today for our offer like what you got and it was great but totally stunned at the prices. Im dreading going back for the viewings as i know its gonna be hard to say no coz we cant afford them

[tina8 10]

I went a few years ago with my OH and my young son, had a lovely hour and came away with the small photo for £25.00, it was hard to say no, but we could't afford it at the time, we were very happy with the small photo. We went again recently this time, with my two sons, they had a really good time running around, posing (wrecking the place) and when we viewed the pictures, it was very hard to resist, there was an offer on although they were stil very expensive, we bought the cheapest set ( if there is such a thing!!)We are paying monthly and to be quite honest, we won't be having these kind of family photos every year, it was a one off....

[algy 11]

They are worth whatever people value them at. Some people don't like them and then won't pay for the shots. Others love them and fork out.

 

].

 

The two posts after yours, and others on this thread, would suggest otherwise.

[bebopaloola 10]

I have just realised I did have a "professional" session....with my son.

 

I won it by naming a bear in T J Hughes...the photography studio was in the lower floor....nothing grand...I went with my son and we "sat" for an hour....in different poses....click, click, click.

 

When we went back to see the photos they were OK....nothing special....but the price was out of my league. I got the free one they promised you.....and when I said I would not be buying the rest of the prints they said how much could you afford. I said £25 for the lot. And that is what I paid.

 

I don't think Ventura would accept such an offer though.

 

Every body wins these comps!!!! I know this for a fact as I used to be the one who phoned up every single person who entered the compertitions to let them know the good news "congratulations you have won!"

[boyfriday 21]

Anyone who creates anything, be it a film script, a photo, a painting, a piece of music a sculpture etc owns the copyright as that is the law.

 

Not so with the company nikki-red quoted in their post.

 

Someone I know had some photos done at the photographers at Elsecar Heritage park and theyre stunning! They were there ages and the photos are just as good (and same style) as Venture. For a fraction of what Venture charge they got a load of prints and also the disc with all the other photos.

 

 

here..........http://www.picture-proud.co.uk/

[boyfriday 21]

They are worth whatever people value them at. Some people don't like them and then won't pay for the shots. Others love them and fork out.

 

But some people want the highly processed shots with less reality as you put it, shots. And making people look good in photos takes time and as time is money.....Whatever you think about Venture, they changed high street portrait photography from dull + boring shots of families standing or sitting down looking a bit uncomfortable, to fun family shoots which can result in some quite interesting photos.

 

I agree, I walked past their studio in Leeds one evening a couple of years ago, the pictures displayed in the window looked fantastic, and highly original.

 

For a long time parents have expected studios to take pictures of their children for free, there was a thread running here just last week on that very issue. I'm not sure why there's that expectation, maybe people assume a good picture is just a case of point and click.

 

Proper studios are an expensive enterprise and of course have to run commercially. Ventura have seized the opportunity as an exercise in marketing, and must do pretty well out of it.

 

As nice as the pictures are, I would regard spending £2000 on a couple of photographs as extortionate, but those that want to pay it will receive something exceptional and not the 'high street portrait photography' you mention.

Edited July 4, 2010 by boyfriday

[lh82 10]

I went to the photographers in Crystal Peaks Market. I wanted the Ventura style pics but obviously couldnt afford their prices. The man took some great pics of my babies and edited them so they are really close up, modern pics, a big canvas was only £80 and that was 3 years ago, they have loads of offers on everytime i go past so you could probably get even better deals now.

 

I would never go near Ventura, what a rip off!

[jezzyjj 10]

The two posts after yours, and others on this thread, would suggest otherwise.

Everything is only worth what people will pay for it. Whether it be some photos or a house. You can put what ever price you want on anything, but it is only worth what people are prepared to pay. The posts that complain about the prices do not value the photos.

You don't go to a Rolls Royce showroom if you are not on an extremely high wage, so why go to an extremely expensive photographer if you cannot afford their prices. And Venture are well known for their high prices.

[jezzyjj 10]

Not so with the company nikki-red quoted in their post.

Nope they owned the copyright just as I explained above, but have chosen to then rescind that copyright or not enforce it.

Mind you they couldn't charge what Venture does as they are nowhere near as good. So they compete on price, not quality.

[boyfriday 21]

Nope they owned the copyright just as I explained above, but have chosen to then rescind that copyright or not enforce it.

Mind you they couldn't charge what Venture does as they are nowhere near as good. So they compete on price, not quality.

 

Yes, I understand the general principle you were describing-it would appear the company that was linked to, offer their 'property' without any reservations to retaining ownership.

 

The outcome for the client is the same, whether there existed no copyright restrictions in the first place or the company has chosen to forego their entitlement to it.

[jezzyjj 10]

As nice as the pictures are, I would regard spending £2000 on a couple of photographs as extortionate, but those that want to pay it will receive something exceptional and not the 'high street portrait photography' you mention.

People complaining about Venture's high prices should start a thread about what a rip off Porsche cars are or that houses in Dore are extortionate, as you can get a much cheaper house in Manor Top and both have roofs and front doors, so they must be the same.

 

Before anyone starts, I don't drive a Porsche, nor do I have any interest in one and do not live in a Dore mansion either. I would however spend a small fortune on a bike - compared to the average person, as I like and value bikes.

As for the £2000 cost for some photos or say a new bike, to give an alternative perspective, that's about how much a packet of fags a day costs for a year. And the photos and bike will last a lot longer than one year.

[jezzyjj 10]

Yes, I understand the general principle you were describing-it would appear the company that was linked to, offer their 'property' without any reservations to retaining ownership.

 

The outcome for the client is the same, whether there existed no copyright restrictions in the first place or the company has chosen to forego their entitlement to it.

But they are only doing that to give apparent 'added value' to a poor quality product. You do not tend to give away things that actually have value. And it doesn't change how copyright works and I was explaining that why Venture retaining their copyright was not an evil thing, even if others are daft enough to give their work away.

 

If I was being photographed, I would be very unimpressed by a photographer who offered a DVD with every shot taken. I'd rather have one or two great photos, than a bunch of images that the photographer was to lazy to even edit the poor shots out. It's actually cheaper to give the client every single shot as it's less work for the photographer, so not a good a bargain as some people think. You tend to get what you pay for.