@@grandmaheidi5757 we have done. Although newborns are far more flexible so it’s super comfortable to them compared to an adult.

We don’t have phobias - we love pets, but don’t allow them in our studio for valid reasons. Those who don’t like that are welcome to go elsewhere 🥰

@@gillardstudios The Karen's of Photography. I'm sure you believe your reasons about banning pets in Family Portraits are valid...but they're not, so yeah there's that 🥰

@@Fleabag707 Allergies are a perfectly valid reason. Why should our photographer suffer breathing difficulties when he doesn't need to? We don't need to justify our decisions for them to be valid - simply not wanting to photograph pets would be a perfectly valid enough reason also.

@@gillardstudios I understand the concern about allergies, but let's be honest here - it's a weak excuse. If the photographer truly had severe allergies that prevented him from being around animals, he wouldn't have taken the job in the first place. It's clear this is just a cover for his unwillingness to deal with pets. The truth is, pets are a part of many people's families. They bring joy, companionship, and unconditional love. Excluding them from family photos is like saying they don't matter, that they aren't important members of the household. It's discriminatory and narrow-minded. Moreover, the argument that "simply not wanting to photograph pets" is a valid reason is laughable. By that logic, a photographer could refuse to shoot interracial couples, LGBTQ+ individuals, or disabled clients. Where do we draw the line? It's a slippery slope that leads to prejudice and exclusion. Photographers have a responsibility to capture the essence of a family, and for many, that includes their furry friends. Refusing to include pets is not only lazy and unprofessional, but it's also a disservice to the clients who are paying for a comprehensive representation of their loved ones. Furthermore, dealing with pets is a basic skill that any competent photographer should possess. It requires patience, adaptability, and creativity - qualities that are essential in this field. By avoiding pet photography, this individual is stunting his own growth and limiting his abilities. In conclusion, allergies are not a valid excuse for refusing to photograph pets. It's a cop-out, plain and simple. A true professional would find ways to accommodate their clients' needs, whether that means taking allergy medication, using air purifiers, or shooting outdoors. Anything less is a failure to provide quality service and a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a family photographer.

@@Fleabag707 As much as I'd have loved to take the time to fully read your chat GPT generated response, I am not going to. But I have skimmed and will give you these points as a final response. 1. A photographer who runs their own business can CHOOSE to photograph whatever they want. OUR PHOTOGRAPHER HASN'T TAKEN A JOB AS A PET PHOTOGRAPHER! To compare it with being discriminatory is what's laughable. Pets DO NOT come under a protected characteristic under UK law, so it's a completely moot comparison. Photographers have every right to refuse to work with animals on ANY basis, even just choice. Under the same premise that they can refuse to photograph weddings, commercial work etc... It is common place for photographers to specialise - it doesn't mean that they are incompetent photographers, it means that they are known for a specific genre. We specialise in NEWBORN BABIES, NOT DOGS. We would be happy to refer to a photographer who specialises in pets. By not photographing everything and specialising, it has actually progressed our growth. Ever heard the phrase jack of all, master of none? Our client base love and understand that we are a pet free studio, because they know that their allergies will not be triggered by residual hair or saliva in our studio space. 2. Allergies are and ALWAYS WILL be a valid reason not to work with animals and would actually be protected in a court of law. If a photographer were employed by a portrait photography company and they were forced to work with pets despite having a severe allergy, that company could actually be prosecuted for failing to protect the health and safety of their employee. It's like asking a photographer to photograph nuts when they are highly allergic. You legally CANNOT put your staff at risk when it comes to their health. We apply those same principles to self employment. Simply taking medication will not be sufficient, and if you have severe allergies you would understand this. In conclusion, none of your points are valid. You are simply offended personally by our business choices and decided to waste your time commenting with a very weak arguement. If you are looking to hire a pet photographer, there are many available who are excellent at this particular genre. Thank you for your engagement on our post, we truly appreciate it, and we wish you the very best.