We all see them, the photo shoots for £10 for a lovely family portrait , or even a free shoot, and you’d be forgiven for thinking what a great deal these are! But sadly 99% of the time they’re not, and the companies who offer them rely on you not knowing that.

Before I became a photographer, I’d had these shoots for the kids when they were babies or the obligatory family photos and the idea of a free, or very heavily discounted shoot, sounds too good to be true. Because it is. Yes, you can get some beautiful images of your newest family member, but that’s where they make all that money back that you ‘saved’. You’ll be sat there in a lovely viewing area whilst a salesperson tells you how beautiful this image is…oh and this one… that one too… the grandparents will LOVE a smaller print of these… And before you know it you’ve agreed to purchase £200+ worth of prints because they’re literally saying “oh you can’t possibly not have that one, it’s so beautiful!”

Have a look at some first hand experiences here.

It’s not that these companies are necessarily shady; they just have a target market that is, in the majority, the people who don’t realise that they’re pressure sales orientated. This is where the small business can often provide you with a better deal, because costs are up front and transparent and usually involve a certain amount of images being included. Not only that but they’ll make more effort to make your shoot personal, rather than a production line. Who remembers those certain companies who offered free shoots, but charged £800-1000 if you wanted the images and they looked exactly the same as everyone else’s images who’d gone through their doors because the photographers actually don’t know anything other than point and click? Your local independent photography company usually has far more experience and are happy to discuss your needs and your budget. I know that I’d rather have the repeat customers that I do, than sell those extra prints to them and never see them again.

So next time you’re browsing your preferred voucher sites and see one of these come up, or enter the competition to win a free shoot, remember to read the fine print and ask questions before diving in to what you’re led to believe is a fantastic deal that can just end up costing more than the saving itself.

It’s a regular irritation of mine that for some reason digital art is considered less valid than traditional methods. I’ve even heard it described as ‘virtual art’ as if in some way it isn’t real.

I am an artist. Well, I went to art college and work in an art based industry so that kind of makes me an artist. Either way, I have always loved to draw but found that working in the graphics industry had meant that I did less art for myself and even illustration work within the industry seemed to be getting less and less, so I thought it was time to start scribbling again. I bought a pad and some pencils and with the encouragement of my wife tried to get back into it but there was never time, or I couldn’t be bothered, or I just got frustrated so I gave up.

Then I bought an iPad.

Having worked in photoshop pretty much since it began, and having produced illustrations that way for years, the idea of drawing digitally came easily to me. I was introduced to a brilliant app called Procreate and I was hooked. The old skills came creeping back, I was getting reasonably good again, so I started taking commissions and planned to sell prints. That’s when I first encountered people’s bias against digital drawings. When I told a potential customer how I was working I was actually asked 'if it would be cheaper because I was only doing it on a computer?'. I was gobsmacked!

Why would it cost less?

Working digitally is convenient yes, you can take it anywhere, you can mix media easily, there’s no mess and of course there are multiple undos, but it takes the same skills and a similar amount of time. So what is the issue? Firstly I would guess it’s the assumption by non artistic people that because it’s on a computer, it does all of the work for you. Yes there are some things that can make your life easier but they are still tools that you have to know how to use. I think the biggest issue though is that there is no original piece. Yes you can do prints but there’s not an actual, physical original and people do love ownership.

But isn’t this also true of photography?

With digital photography there is no original, even in traditional film photography there was no original print (yes there was a negative but you can make multiple copies of that) yet that is universally accepted. Will digital art ever be accepted the same way? Or will there always be a longing for old school? Old photographers get misty eyed over film and dark rooms... music lovers are buying vinyl because it was better than digital...

So my question is...

Will digital art ever be real?