Devaluing Photography

[mlrproducts]

Recent threads have brought this up, and it seems to be a growing trend.

With the introduction of "prosumer" digital cameras and the DSLR, more and more folks are taking photos. Of course, by their nature the higher end cameras generally help to produce better photos without assistance from the photographer. In my opinion, this has led to the advent of "Uncle Photographer." You know - the guy at all the family reunions snapping away so much that you never even see the face behind the camera.

Been to a wedding lately? How many people did you see snapping away with the Digital Rebels and D50s? I feel like I'm in the middle of a war. While I am not a wedding photographer, I know many that keep having Uncle Photographer get in their way when shooting a wedding. Often Uncle Photographer is pushing people out of the way to fire the shutter as much as possible. After all, if he takes 2000+ photos, some will be good, right?

It is a touchy subject for everyone. Professionals feel the bottom dropping out of the market, and newcomers delight at the joy of being able to make a quick buck with their fancy new camera. Granted, there is always going to be a portion out there that are the new pro photogs, who have the talent, and they've got to start somewhere.

I've found personally something interesting in my photographic journey. When I first began getting paid for shoots, I loved it, and got a big head about it. But after a while, I just got frustrated. At one point, I realized that while my pictures were "good," they weren't technically superior and they weren't the best that they should be. I found myself going from cocky to frustrated. Since that time I've cooled down on anything paid, and have focused on developing my skill. The way I see it - if I want to charge a premium price, I have to have a vastly superior premium product.

From my point of view, I've been the noob and yet I now understand the POV of the pros - after all, equipment (and by that I mean more than just the camera and CF card), cost money. I'm not even sure where I stand when it all comes down to it.

What are your opinions?

Below is an article by Patrick Rice on this very subject. A good read:
http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=1757

[Mike Teezie]

I am just starting out myself, having only been in the biz for about nine months. My goal is to open a studio, have full time assistants - the whole nine yards. I've invested pretty heavily into the plan with equipment, training, a professionally designed website, and most of all, time and energy. Since I am just starting out, I'm not comfortable with calling myself a pro even though my job is technically photography. I feel that it would do a disservice to the big pros who've been at it for years. I admire them, for being able to make money in the business that I plan to be in. I'm sort of looking for a mentor to guide me teach me things of a non technical or art nature.

It's interesting/concerning to me, wondering where I'll be in two years. People are definitely much more hip to photography now. The idea of, as you said, making a quick buck - is definitely appealing, and I wonder if people today really care to try and notice a difference in the amateur's work versus the professional's. For my sake, I hope they do. For me, the hardest part of getting my biz off the ground has been setting my pricing structures. Don't want to undercut the pros around here, and I don't want to charge a premium that the market won't bear for someone who is so new.

So I guess my answer is: I don't know. I hope not.

I wouldn't know, but was it sufficient a few years ago to just have a big, expensive looking camera setup? I wish it was still that way! :D

[Chip NoVaMac]

Good point. I think is part of the "Wal-Martization" of most "simple" needs of society. The more cameras out there, the greater the chance of some great images.

Ran in to a buddy of mine that is a fine photographer that now works as PJ for a local paper. We compared images shot during Rolling Thunder. He felt that I came away with better captures of the moment. But he and I agreed that he had to cover much more than just Rolling Thunder, but also the Memorial Day events that Sunday. As well as I was working on my own time, and he was looking at the hours on the "pay meter" click by.

[TheAnswer]

The wedding scenario is the one that really irks me. You'd really hope that as the photographer that these people are paying for, you'd have the ability to ask a client to ask that any amateur photography not take place during the ceremony. Or at least a request that all the amateurs disable their flash. I think if most "Uncle Photographers" knew that they might be ruining a $3000-$10000 wedding photography set with their hobby, they would chill out.

The best thing for a pro to do may be to give a non-talented friend a camera and take pictures of comprable subjects, then you can show clients the superiority of your product.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The wedding scenario is the one that really irks me. You'd really hope that as the photographer that these people are paying for, you'd have the ability to ask a client to ask that any amateur photography not take place during the ceremony. Or at least a request that all the amateurs disable their flash. I think if most "Uncle Photographers" knew that they might be ruining a $3000-$10000 wedding photography set with their hobby, they would chill out.

The best thing for a pro to do may be to give a non-talented friend a camera and take pictures of comprable subjects, then you can show clients the superiority of your product.

I hate doing weddings. So I tend to do the ones that never would be photographed.

[law guy]

Recent threads have brought this up, and it seems to be a growing trend.

With the introduction of "prosumer" digital cameras and the DSLR, more and more folks are taking photos. Of course, by their nature the higher end cameras generally help to produce better photos without assistance from the photographer. In my opinion, this has led to the advent of "Uncle Photographer." You know - the guy at all the family reunions snapping away so much that you never even see the face behind the camera.

Been to a wedding lately? How many people did you see snapping away with the Digital Rebels and D50s? I feel like I'm in the middle of a war. While I am not a wedding photographer, I know many that keep having Uncle Photographer get in their way when shooting a wedding. Often Uncle Photographer is pushing people out of the way to fire the shutter as much as possible. After all, if he takes 2000+ photos, some will be good, right?

It is a touchy subject for everyone. Professionals feel the bottom dropping out of the market, and newcomers delight at the joy of being able to make a quick buck with their fancy new camera. Granted, there is always going to be a portion out there that are the new pro photogs, who have the talent, and they've got to start somewhere.

I've found personally something interesting in my photographic journey. When I first began getting paid for shoots, I loved it, and got a big head about it. But after a while, I just got frustrated. At one point, I realized that while my pictures were "good," they weren't technically superior and they weren't the best that they should be. I found myself going from cocky to frustrated. Since that time I've cooled down on anything paid, and have focused on developing my skill. The way I see it - if I want to charge a premium price, I have to have a vastly superior premium product.

From my point of view, I've been the noob and yet I now understand the POV of the pros - after all, equipment (and by that I mean more than just the camera and CF card), cost money. I'm not even sure where I stand when it all comes down to it.

What are your opinions?

Below is an article by Patrick Rice on this very subject. A good read:
http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=1757

I'm not sure I've seen a great increase in photographers with good cameras - a few years ago, you could get a good Nikon or Canon film body for a few hundred dollars and the same lenses (more or less) as today. Of course, there was the cost of film and processing were additional, but with digital I find that you just pay a lot more of the costs up front. With DSLRs you're over $600 most of the time and for something like a 30D you're at $1300 and a D70s you're at around $1000. For that kind of money in the film world you could have had a frickin F100! The equivilent film feature camera to today's D70s / 30D- say a n80 was what $400? I'm not sure that photography was that much more expensive though - you could keep that K1000 or N90s for years and years - never really became obsolete. Talk about "uncle photographers" - I do have an uncle that loves to take the family pictures - he has the same 35 mm he bought in the early 80s (metal tank of a thing) and the same zoom lens and it's still going strong in 2006 - 20 plus years on it. And you weren't buying $3000 power macs and $600 software (sure, if you did by a macIIfx in the early 90s you were paying $10 grand for it - adjusted for 3% inflation that's a $14,800 computer in 2006 dollars, but folks weren't buying those for photography at the popular level). The continuing costs depended on how much film you went though for the most part. "Pros" were shooting on assignment and had places to ship film back to. There are stories of the how you'd ship 1000 rolls back to National Geographic and have their labs develop it and the photo editors cull through with the photographers on the light table. Certainly the average Joe didn't have a place to ship 1000 rolls to for free processing.

What I think has changed is how shots are taken - with all of those costs up front instead of on the back side of processing and printing - is the massive number of shots you can now take and what you can easily do after the fact. I don't know if its good or bad - I love to be able to shoot hundreds of shots rather than knowing that my 10 rolls of film were going to cost me over $100 to process. I like being able to change exposure after the fact.

So to recap - five years ago, cheaper cost of entry for a good camera. I think there were pleanty of rebel film cameras, Pentax K1000s, Canons and then of course the sure shots in the 90s (makes me think of 110 film and the Kodak disc in the 80s... what was that about?) and folks excited about the APS cameras too (yes, I had an APS ELPH) at weddings (I was there with my Nikon and a few). But you probably had folks buy a three pack of 36 roll 400 speed for a wedding and many would probably just shoot a roll. Others of us who did shoot more were buying in bulk from B&H and negotiating per-print prices for 20 rolls, but that type of shooting was expensive. Now the camera is glued to some folks' face and people shoot the things like they're semi-automatic weapons at the firing range.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I will say that I have had more of my fair share of photographers wanting to do weddings and the such - only wanting the likes of the D2X(s) or perhaps the D200. Just so they might "look" professional.

Never mind that a photographer using a Kodak 104 might beat a photographer using an Aptus 75!

[seenew]

In my opinion, the advent of quality digital cameras becoming more readily available to "average" consumers is a good thing. I can understand your concerns stated above, but I feel that there's much more pros to the situation than cons. First off, when has competition been bad? Competition forces increase in quality.
Yes, photos taken by even the most talentless moron with a low-end SLR will look pretty good to the common eye, thanks to auto focus and auto exposure settings, that's where the quality ends.
Composition is still the largest aspect of successful photography, and it takes either a trained or talented eye to spot those perfect setups. Average Joe will just point and shoot. The pro/enthusiast will frame the shot, and probably take several slightly varied versions as well. He/she will come out better than Joe.
Post-work is also a big deal. I know it's controversial how much or how little it's acceptable to edit your photos in Photoshop, but color correction, toning, contrast increases, specialized coloring, those are all proccesses the average guy is not going to be able to do, much less care about it. It's like making sure your product is the cleanest, shiniest it can be before you put it up for sale/show. Joe is just going to show his to some friends and be done with it.

Another positive aspect of the "prosumer" photography era is that it gives many talented individuals a chance to experiment and try something they'd never otherwise be able to afford.
I know I fit into this category. I've always been into art, it's always been my passion. I'd always admired photography as well, but never thought I had the time or money to invest in such a complicated process (the camera, lenses, and developing film). Then I got a 3.2MP Kodak Easyshare for my birthday one year. Not at all anywhere near the "prosumer" level. It had autofocus, and that was about it. BUT, it opened the door to one of my current biggest passions. I learned all about framing a shot, composing a mood in a photo, and just what does and does not work in photography. It was probably an easier transistion for me than most, since I was already familiar with composing drawings and paintings, but it still took a whole lot of work to become decent at all. When I look back at the photos I took in 2002-2003, I shudder. TERRIBLE. And I used to think they were good! As my skill and knowledge increased, I invested in better cameras, a new brand each time, too, just to explore. I got an 4MP Olympus C-750 Ultrazoom next, to take to my trip to NYC. That lasted me more than 2 years until it got stolen last October. I used the insurance from that robbery to buy my 8MP Nikon Coolpix 8800. I was AMAZED at what I could accomplish with this "beast." I loved all the features of that camera, and it served me very well, until I wrecked my car 3 weeks ago, and it died in the crash. I used THAT insurance to help buy my current Rebel XT. Finally, I've got a DSLR, and I have opened a new door into learning about focal lengths, and all the other stuff important to buying glass. Already learned hard lessons, too (haha :().

Bottom line, had I not been able to afford that first digital camera, I would not be where I am today as an artist. In fact, I'm considering a major in photography this fall at SCAD.

[mlrproducts]

In fact, I'm considering a major in photography this fall at SCAD.

Now you see, that is the part that I find extremely cool!

In fact, I got a few friends interested in photography in college and one of them went off to another school to pursue the major.

I guess my biggest concern is the whole pricing aspect. If you're new, and not that great, I'd rather have you not charge (my competition or not). Because, I'd rather see someone get better, and then charge more. Hey, doesn't everyone want to spend less time earning more money?

(of course, that last statement isn't true. While the more experienced photog can take fewer shoots for a higher price, they have def spent their time taking photos - in the past, learning. Of course, if I'm learning I don't consider it work!)

To the newbies charging nothing - what do you do when you shoot the first sibling's senior photos and the next sibling wants theres done 2-3 years later, at the same price? Been there, and it isn't a good situation to be in (and I was charging very competitively -not cheap- the first go round). If you become good enough - you'll be in high demand, and people will pay what you demand.

Its almost as if this is the introduction of McD's all over again. At first, they're are going to be a lot of people going to feast at the cheaper place. Then (as photo "chains" grow) as quality declines, some people go back to the mom and pop restaurants, where quality and service count. In the end, there will be some lost to the FF chains, but everyone has room.

Perhaps this is the situation becoming of the photography industry? If it ends well in the end, then that's all good and well. However, it sucks to go through the "growing pains!"

[FrankieTDouglas]

Had I not bought a digital point and shoot a few years back... I know I'd be heading in a different direction now. I used to always run around with a 35mm pocket camera or use my polaroid camera for fun. But the price of constant developing got to me and I had to cut back. With the digital camera, I was able to snap waaaayyyy more pictures and take chances that I maybe wouldn't have with my film cameras because I wasn't having to count pictures in monetary ways. I guess it worked out in the end and buying the cheap digital camera was a good thing... I'm starting work on my MFA in photography this fall. My "undergraduate education" in photo was just learning with that camera, while I received a BA in psychology.

Thank you, consumer products.

Though I do agree with the original poster. But I did shoot a wedding a few weeks back. And I had no problem at all with people shooting pictures from the pews. A wedding isn't just the photographer's assignment. It's an event for everyone there, and people like to remember the event with photos, from the vantage point they had to watch it.

[Applespider]

Interesting article that the OP linked to.

I'm not a pro although I have a good family friend who has made his living that way for many years. He's mostly gone away from the 'traditional' family shots now and moved to the corporate market with his studio now set up for shooting product rather than people.

His take on the recent switch away from formal studio photos is different. He feels that it's part of society becoming less formal and wanting more 'relaxed' shots. While the heavily posed studio shot of the new mother with baby can look good, would the family prefer a more natural approach in their home?

Does the graduating senior want a plain background behind them while they pose, or a shot with a background that means something.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Now you see, that is the part that I find extremely cool!

In fact, I got a few friends interested in photography in college and one of them went off to another school to pursue the major.

I guess my biggest concern is the whole pricing aspect. If you're new, and not that great, I'd rather have you not charge (my competition or not). Because, I'd rather see someone get better, and then charge more. Hey, doesn't everyone want to spend less time earning more money?

(of course, that last statement isn't true. While the more experienced photog can take fewer shoots for a higher price, they have def spent their time taking photos - in the past, learning. Of course, if I'm learning I don't consider it work!)

To the newbies charging nothing - what do you do when you shoot the first sibling's senior photos and the next sibling wants theres done 2-3 years later, at the same price? Been there, and it isn't a good situation to be in (and I was charging very competitively -not cheap- the first go round). If you become good enough - you'll be in high demand, and people will pay what you demand.

Its almost as if this is the introduction of McD's all over again. At first, they're are going to be a lot of people going to feast at the cheaper place. Then (as photo "chains" grow) as quality declines, some people go back to the mom and pop restaurants, where quality and service count. In the end, there will be some lost to the FF chains, but everyone has room.

Perhaps this is the situation becoming of the photography industry? If it ends well in the end, then that's all good and well. However, it sucks to go through the "growing pains!"

To be honest, I really wanted to avoid posting in this thread (you can tell the thread is slightly aimed at responding to a few of my threads...:o )

What's your opinion on charging just enough to pay off the photos themselves. I ask, because I would've had to take a 300-400 dollar hit in paying for other people's photos to be processed at the first few shows I did (my margins, as you hopefully see, were bear-to-none :p )

I've never had a problem raising prices...as long as it goes hand-in-hand with a rise in quality. Don't tell me you're trying to raise prices while selling the same exact product...:rolleyes: . If you explain why you're charging an increase (i.e. why it's a better value) and why you remain competitive (i.e. mention competitor's pricing/quality), then the customer usually goes for it...

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Though I do agree with the original poster. But I did shoot a wedding a few weeks back. And I had no problem at all with people shooting pictures from the pews. A wedding isn't just the photographer's assignment. It's an event for everyone there, and people like to remember the event with photos, from the vantage point they had to watch it.

Now, this is a very interesting (and very valid, in my opinion) point. Although many people on this site discredit my experience, I have worked with a professional photography studio. I have worked with photographers that charged thousands of dollars for their services. So, I'm familiar with both their personalities and their quality.

Put bluntly, professional photographers can be extremely cruel, arrogant people at times. Personally, I like to think that it's just them trying to get the perfect shot - but oftentimes, I think they go overboard. You can't imagine how cruel they were behind-the-scenes; how many times they called a client 'hideous' or unfairly insulted the competition.

[Applespider]

What's your opinion on charging just enough to pay off the photos themselves.

I've never had a problem raising prices...as long as it goes hand-in-hand with a rise in quality. Don't tell me you're trying to raise prices while selling the same exact product...:rolleyes: .

Probably because you have to allow an additional premium for the skill level and to cover your living costs. At 17, while I commend you for your entrepreneurial ideas, you are, most likely, subsidised by your parents in terms of your living space, your food and your clothing. Perhaps in 10 years time, when you also need to cover monthly rent, food and drink for your family then you might appreciate that prices can't just cover the cost of taking and printing a picture. Everything has some form of markup.

And when you have transport/power/rent costs, there are times when prices are going to have to go up slightly with no increase in quality. It's called inflation.

[iGary]

To be honest, I really wanted to avoid posting in this thread (you can tell the thread is slightly aimed at responding to a few of my threads... )

What's your opinion on charging just enough to pay off the photos themselves. I ask, because I would've had to take a 300-400 dollar hit in paying for other people's photos to be processed at the first few shows I did (my margins, as you hopefully see, were bear-to-none )



In my opinion, no offense, you charge way too little for your prints, and when you do that, someone who is trying to make a living has to defend the going rate. But you have your comfort level. No overhead, no taxes, no insurance, relatively inexpensive equipment...it's just pocket money for you - I used to be there, so I understand.

It's like part-time photographers in my area who charge $50.00 an hour, because they think it's "fun" to go out and do shoots. I don't leave the house for less than $200.00 an hour, unless it's a QTVR, and that is a fixed price (and no, I'm not trying to be an arrogant ass quoting my price - by the time I get all the images processed, labeled, burned etc - I'm luck to clear 50 an hour). I don't even go near advertising shoots any more for this very reason. I get calls a year later saying "hey there is this guy in town who shoots for $50.00 an hour." I usually tell them that they should go ahead and use him, and then I get a call a couple of months later....complaining....wanting a re-shoot.

End of the day, it's your perogative, but consumers and clients normally just look at the bottom line, and it's hard for me to justify charging $20.00 for a 4X6 (like most of my colleagues do) at a sailing event when people see other types of "home brew" photographers trying to make an extra buck charging much less.

It's fine - it's competition and it's a free country, but don't expect me to sit back and like you giving away your work because you can. The "art" prints I do are for pure enjoyment on my part, but I still charge the going rate for what I think they are worth. If someone doesn't want it, they don't have to buy it.

I think the main point is you cheapen the "art" and the profession when you give away your work at lowball prices, and then boast (and you pat yourself on the back a lot) what a succesful freelance photographer you are when you don't have the same overhead a "professional" has.

Sorry if I sounded like a jerk. :o

[njmac]

haha, well I feel like I hit a hot button when I started this debate in the first thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=214223) but it is something I'm glad is being discussed.



For me the bottom line is that you don't undercut everyone in the area because it not the right thing to do. Charge accordingly to your quality level and everyone will win. If you charge next to nothing then everyone will lose including you (because you can charge more and people WILL buy) the pro's (who can't make a living giving pics away) and the consumers (who have no choice other than mediocre pictures (because the pro's have all been scared away because they can not and will not compete with free.

Feel guilty about charging so much for a picture? Don't. The market will decide for you what your pictures are worth. Don't devalue your work because you want the neighborhood to keep their cash in their pockets. You don't need to make a living? Then practice the craft by shooting and getting betteruntil you may want to make a living - by then you won't be known as the guy that does ok work for dirt cheap. Keep the pictures, share them for critique but don't give them away. You'll some day be the guy who takes amazing photos and is worth every penny charged.


Amateur photogs who shoot for fun at a sporting event for free and give away prints often do not understand that they are taking a job from someone. Lets say that photog wanna-be is a cook in a restaurant to make a living and takes pics as a hobby. I wonder how he would feel if some guy in the neighborhood was always praised for his home cooking and and thought it would be "fun" to work in a restaurant. He tells the owner he can cook and because he doesn't need the money because he has a day job, he'll work for $2.00/hr or free. Line cook fired. How would he feel then?

[iGary]

For me the bottom line is that you don't undercut everyone in the area because it not the right thing to do. Charge accordingly to your quality level and everyone will win.

This is my point - all of the professional organizations (ASP, ASAP, etc.) publish "going" rates for a reason. If you take good enough pics that people want to buy them, charge what they are worth, not just the priniting.


If you charge next to nothing then everyone will lose including you (because you can charge more and people WILL buy) the pro's (who can't make a living giving pics away) and the consumers (who have no choice other than mediocre pictures (because the pro's have all been scared away because they can not and will not compete with free.

There are several types of photography that I won't even touch anymore for this very reason. Probably why I do more freelance writing than photography these days.

Feel guilty about charging so much for a picture? Don't.

There are new professionals in the area here that will GIVE AWAY an entire shoot just to build their portfolio or get published.

mateur photogs who shoot for fun at a sporting event for free and give away prints often do not understand that they are taking a job from someone. Lets say that he is a cook in a restaurant to make a living and takes pics as a hobby. I wonder how he would feel if some guy in the neighborhood was always praised for his home cooking and and thought it would be "fun" to work in a restaurant. He tells the owner he can cook and because he doesn't need the money because he has a day job, he'll work for $2.00/hr or free. Line cook fired. How would he feel then?

I'm all for a free market, and I make a decent living, but yeah, what you said. I don't want to sound like some whiny old crotch who is pissed about being undercut. More than anything, I'm for more competition based on QUALITY, not low ball pricing.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I'm all for a free market, and I make a decent living, but yeah, what you said. I don't want to sound like some whiny old crotch who is pissed about being undercut. More than anything, I'm for more competition based on QUALITY, not low ball pricing.

See, now we have two seperate stances (or three, if you include what I'm doing at the moment.) Clearly, my business model is going to have to change drastically if I keep taking pictures professionally relatively soon. At the moment, I offer pretty high quality shots (keep checking my other thread on "17-year old freelancing photography" for side-by-side comparisons with other photographers...coming soon! :p ) for a very, very low cost. Some people in this thread believe I'm charging too much (mlrproducts and Clix Pix), whereas others don't believe I'm charging enough.

Can anyone say...mixed signals? :D :o

[iGary]

See, now we have two seperate stances (or three, if you include what I'm doing at the moment.) Clearly, my business model is going to have to change drastically if I keep taking pictures professionally relatively soon. At the moment, I offer pretty high quality shots (keep checking my other thread on "17-year old freelancing photography" for side-by-side comparisons with other photographers...coming soon! :p ) for a very, very low cost. Some people in this thread believe I'm charging too much (mlrproducts and Clix Pix), whereas others don't believe I'm charging enough.

Can anyone say...mixed signals? :D :o

$2 a print is outrageously low, and you are marketing that versus your own talent. Your Web site is loaded with how much better you are because of how cheap your are, not on talent.

Just my .02.

[njmac]

$2 a print is outrageously low, and you are marketing that versus your own talent. Your Web site is loaded with how much better you are because of how cheap your are, not on talent.

Just my .02.

I agree 100%. Does it make sense to you why we are saying this?

BTW, did you check out Sportsshooter.com (http://www.sportsshooter.com)?

[Applespider]

Some people in this thread believe I'm charging too much (mlrproducts and Clix Pix), whereas others don't believe I'm charging enough.

Can anyone say...mixed signals? :D :o

No, they're the same signal.

The two who thought you were charging too much thought that your work was so poor that you were ripping people off by charging anything for it. I think they were looking at your early work at this point.

The others who thought you weren't charging enough were suggesting that you got better equipment, took pictures and sold closer to the market rate rather than undercutting so steeply.

Not commenting on either view... merely interpreting.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

No, they're the same signal.

The two who thought you were charging too much thought that your work was so poor that you were ripping people off by charging anything for it. I think they were looking at your early work at this point.

The others who thought you weren't charging enough were suggesting that you got better equipment, took pictures and sold closer to the market rate rather than undercutting so steeply.

Not commenting on either view... merely interpreting.

These threads are becomming a bit overwhelming for me :o .

They're not the same signal - they're different (opposites, really).

To be sure, I've been a member of this site for almost a year now (and I've enjoyed it for the most part). I only posted in the 'digital photography' forum because I was interested in a new camera, and I figured that people here would be more than willing to throw in their advice. Of course, I got completely ripped apart in that thread - I mentioned my website as a means for people to see what I was taking now - I never intended for people to comment on what I was charging...

Then, a few people requested that I start a thread on how I developed my business - so I did. Again, I got ripped apart, with half the thread arguing that I needed to stop charging and the other half arguing that I needed to increase my prices pronto!

Then, this thread started (which is, at least partially, a response to my past threads). Honestly, I'm not looking for blessings or to be flattered - but I'm definitely not looking for all this intense heat/drama either. Honestly, quite a few of you are really sucking the fun outta this place...:(

[iGary]

Honestly, quite a few of you are really sucking the fun outta this place...

I agree completely.

Do you have any idea how self-focused you come across? (Count the "I's" and "my's" in your above post for starters.)

Evidently not. You even think this whole thread is about you, or at least you are attempting to make it seem that way - which, by the way, you do a lot. I've kind of had it with the self-obsessed folks around here lately - but that's just me. I've got a healthy and sometimes overbearing ego myself, but I at least make it about other people....sometimes.

I'm going to tatter along back over to Fred Miranda where people like to "share" before I completely loose hope for this place.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

$2 a print is outrageously low, and you are marketing that versus your own talent. Your Web site is loaded with how much better you are because of how cheap your are, not on talent.

Just my .02.

I kind of understand where you're coming from - I do emphasize my affordability. But I also emphasize the quality of the photos - and, since purchasing a new camera and completely redesigning my website, I've rid of all the comments comparing myself to professional photographers.

The basic 'ideal' of Peters Photography is simple:
(from the website) : "Great Photos. Reasonable Pricing. That Simple"

I focus on three things:
Great Photos.
Reasonable Pricing.
Convenience and Flexibility (That Simple).

[njmac]

These threads are becomming a bit overwhelming for me :o .

They're not the same signal - they're different (opposites, really).

To be sure, I've been a member of this site for almost a year now (and I've enjoyed it for the most part). I only posted in the 'digital photography' forum because I was interested in a new camera, and I figured that people here would be more than willing to throw in their advice. Of course, I got completely ripped apart in that thread - I mentioned my website as a means for people to see what I was taking now - I never intended for people to comment on what I was charging...

Then, a few people requested that I start a thread on how I developed my business - so I did. Again, I got ripped apart, with half the thread arguing that I needed to stop charging and the other half arguing that I needed to increase my prices pronto!

Then, this thread started (which is, at least partially, a response to my past threads). Honestly, I'm not looking for blessings or to be flattered - but I'm definitely not looking for all this intense heat/drama either. Honestly, quite a few of you are really sucking the fun outta this place...:(

this thread was a great idea. I'm glad it got moved here instead of rehashing in your threads. Your right you never asked for criticism or comments on your work and what you got, you took incredibly well!


This thread, however, is the right time and place to look at this incredible issue. This drama is NOT DUE TO YOU though. Go to any photography site/forum and search this issue and you will find hundreds, if not thousands of hot/dramatic posts on this topic. DON'T take it personally - this is a huge topic for pro photographers and it means alot to the future of photography. Please think about it. There will be expensive pro photographers for Magazines like Sports Illustrated or Cosmo, and there will be people learning, and charging little for little better than snapshots.. but the middle, where you have people making a living photographing youth sports and the like at a price level that means it HAS to be a second job for someone.

I apologize if I'm one of the people not making it fun for you. I want you to succeed and I give you mucho credit for actually getting out there and getting paid! :) I think all comments regarding price undercutting should be moved HERE and leave your threads alone.

I am enjoying your thread on how you are making it work for you and I think it will be invaluable for others just starting out.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I agree completely.

Do you have any idea how self-focused you come across? (Count the "I's" and "my's" in your above post for starters.)

Evidently not. You even think this whole thread is about you, or at least you are attempting to make it seem that way - which, by the way, you do a lot. I've kind of had it with the self-obsessed folks around here lately - but that's just me. I've got a healthy and sometimes overbearing ego myself, but I at least make it about other people....sometimes.

I'm going to tatter along back over to Fred Miranda where people like to "share" before I completely loose hope for this place.

Sorry :o !! Completely, utterly, unintential. By the way...where were you (weren't you gone for a few days - it seemed like I hadn't seen many of your posts for a bit...)

[Chip NoVaMac]

$2 a print is outrageously low, and you are marketing that versus your own talent. Your Web site is loaded with how much better you are because of how cheap your are, not on talent.

Just my .02.

But it seems to work for Walmart and many web stores. :)

$2 a print IMO works when you are covering an event. Whether it be a marathon race, Bike Week in Virginia Beach, or similar "mass" events.

That being said, there is something attractive to some to only pay for the prints they actually want. The danger there is spending an hour or two in a shoot, and only getting a few bucks out of it.

Maybe there is something to value pricing for photographic work. In this case I would charge an hourly rate for the shoot (Depending on how one values ones time, the rate might be starting at $20 an hour - based on comments from friends and the like I might do it for $30-40 an hour. That rate would go up as I gained a following for my "photographic eye" - if that were to happen.:) ).

One has to look at what the objective is. Is it that our photography is a means to pay for our "hobby". Or is a means for for us to make a living. If it is the latter, then we need to charge what is needed to make our bills.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

this thread was a great idea. I'm glad it got moved here instead of rehashing in your threads. Your right you never asked for criticism or comments on your work and what you got, you took incredibly well!


This thread, however, is the right time and place to look at this incredible issue. This drama is NOT DUE TO YOU though. Go to any photography site/forum and search this issue and you will find hundreds, if not thousands of hot/dramatic posts on this topic. DON'T take it personally - this is a huge topic for pro photographers and it means alot to the future of photography. Please think about it. There will be expensive pro photographers for Magazines like Sports Illustrated or Cosmo, and there will be people learning, and charging little for little better than snapshots.. but the middle, where you have people making a living photographing youth sports and the like at a price level that means it HAS to be a second job for someone.

I apologize if I'm one of the people not making it fun for you. I want you to succeed and I give you mucho credit for actually getting out there and getting paid! :) I think all comments regarding price undercutting should be moved HERE and leave your threads alone.

I am enjoying your thread on how you are making it work for you and I think it will be invaluable for others just starting out.

I do, now that you and iGary have pointed it out, understand - I took this thread personally, and I really shouldn't have.

Hopefully, you understand why I took it personally in the first place. From my thread (second post) and from the OP of this thread:


It hurts me to hear a few things:
1) That you pretty much began charging when you didn't have the experience. I would think that would hurt your future prospects, sort of limit you in where you wanted to grow.
and
2)The prices you've charged. While I know for a fact that competitive pricing is sometimes necessary, I think you're doing yourself and other photographers a disservice. For you, people may find it hard to pay when you raise your rates and the lower that photos get, makes it harder on everyone else. I know it doesn't cost you much now, and you're often going to be giving away your time, but the longer you do it the more you realize that $20+ for an 8x10 is necessary to cover studio, equipment, etc costs.

[iGary]

But it seems to work for Walmart and many web stores

Yeah, but they don't take pictures. :p :D

Anyway, I didn't mean to get so worked up about this. I think I'll go back into hiding now.

Cheers.

[njmac]

Yeah, but they don't take pictures. :p :D

Anyway, I didn't mean to get so worked up about this. I think I'll go back into hiding now.

Cheers.

Don't go into hiding! You are someone on the board actually making money from photography and you have a lot to offer. :)

[w_parietti22]

I just went to a wedding and most people had Sony Cybershots, Canon PowerShots, etc.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I focus on three things:
Great Photos.
Reasonable Pricing.
Convenience and Flexibility (That Simple).

If you can make a profit doing this full time, then congrats. In the DC area, your customers would eat me alive. They are savvy enough to order maybe 5 to 10 4x6 prints and then go to a Kodak Image machine and get to their minds a decent 8x10.

You would not believe the the number of times we have people trying to take 800x600 image and complain that they can't make an 8x10 from that file. Only to watch them climb into their Lexus or Hummer.

These same people will forego their health insurance, in order to get the best care. Photographers don't get the same respect. In part due IMO that some feel that anyone with a camera can give the same results. :eek:

What I would be willing to pay now for a portrait by Yousuf Karsh or Diane Arbus. The price I would pay is for their legendary photographic eye. I am sure that you or iGary could do me justice. :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Don't go into hiding! You are someone on the board actually making money from photography and you have a lot to offer. :)

I agree. I wish I had half the moxy that iGary has. He and I spoke about this - one on one.

Some of us have a hard time in recognizing our talents. And trying to make some income from those talents.

Gary and I got together, and I did some shooting for an article that he was doing. I will admit that I was "stressed" because of the credits he had for his own photographs. :)

A former co-worker and I met on the Metro platform during Rolling Thunder. We both ended our day. Later he came by the store, and I showed him my efforts from that day. His comment was that I better not show his editor my images. :)

In the end it was the difference between shooting for money, verses shooting for the love of photography.

[Applespider]

But it seems to work for Walmart and many web stores. :)

$2 a print IMO works when you are covering an event. Whether it be a marathon race, Bike Week in Virginia Beach, or similar "mass" events.

Yeah... but they're selling identical commodities and not, generally, service.

If I was looking for a picture of my daughter on a horse, I'd probably just choose whichever showed my daughter best.

If I was buying a photograph for my wall, then I'd be looking for the one that spoke to me most. That might be one that I'd taken, flaws and all, because it brought back memories or more likely, it will be an image that I think is beautiful that was taken by a pro. And that one, I'll be happy to pay more for than merely the cost of materials since I'm paying for his/her art and skill.

It's a little like most arty markets. I can go to a store and buy a ceramic or glass vase for under £5. It will hold water and flowers perfectly well.
I can go to a better store and buy a slightly nicer vase.
Or I can go to a craft shop and buy a unique piece from the designer and pay £50-£100 but which I admire.

[iGary]

Gary and I got together, and I did some shooting for an article that he was doing. I will admit that I was "stressed" because of the credits he had for his own photographs.

You are far far far too kind.


And I owe you a copy of that magazine with your shots in it. Remind me next time we manage to get together. :)

[njmac]

A former co-worker and I met on the Metro platform during Rolling Thunder. We both ended our day. Later he came by the store, and I showed him my efforts from that day. His comment was that I better not show his editor my images. :)

In the end it was the difference between shooting for money, verses shooting for the love of photography.

Obviously, I don't know for sure... but what are the chances that you are the better photographer and he just happens to work at the paper?


If you did show his editor your pictures, and then said to the editor that you love taking pictures and you'd love to contribute your pics just for credit! That's the true problem with undercutting.

You don't sound like you would ever do that though and I'm curious why you think that the difference was money vs. fun and not that its simply you are the better photographer?

There are a lot of pros who take pictures for money and come away with fabulous shots. They are rewarded with pay equal to their ability... until someone comes and offers it for free or much less.

[mlrproducts]

Admittedly, I haven't read this whole thread, dang I'm lazy. But from reading almost the whole first page, I've come to this:

I understand the new photographer who will work for (nearly) nothing. After all, it is advertising, right? But I stand by the POV that we MUST NOT UNDERCHARGE! You can still undercut the competition (usually, and by comp I mean pros not the freebie photogs we're trying to rid the world of!). Believe in yourself. I'll say that again: believe in yourself. Don't feel "bad" about charging a set rate. Guess what? People are probably going to pay it!

Just this morning I had a garage sale and was trying to sell a lot of about 5 sports items (same item, different teams). I was going to sell all for $5 (not marked), but a lady only wanted 1 of them. She asked, I stated $5 (why not try?). She said no. I said $2. She paid it, and said "but its not worth it." Did I feel bad? NO NO NO! It obviously WAS worth it, or she wouldn't have paid it! If it wasn't worth it and she paid it, then why should I feel bad because she's "dumb"!?

As for building your portfolio - these are my suggestions and things I've done myself-

If you're into any type of portraits, do a TFP (time/trade for prints, or alternatively TFCD). You get pics for the folio, they get pics to take to an agency. You both got what you wanted, and neither person devalued their service. (see http://www.modelmayhem.com if you're interested in this)

If you're not doing portraits, find people to shoot who would otherwise NOT be seeking your services to pay for. If you're volunteering your services for someone who otherwise would NOT be seeking a photog, you're lessening your impact on devaluation. Also, if you make it clear your intentions (IE: these are a limited "free" series for purpose of your folio only - read up on releases, etc) then you may even have CREATED a potential source for VALUED INCOME at a later date, assuming they liked your work.

[mlrproducts]

post deleted

[mlrproducts]

post deleted

[Grimace]

I think photographers (however you define that term) should charge whatever they feel is appropriate for their work. Yes, some may be far less than the professionals, but that is life.

Many people who want a professional job won't even look at someone who charges $2 a photo; something might seem "fishy" about photos that are so inexpensive. Higher prices can often signal higher quality (look at Apple as an example.)

People who want bargain basement "pro" photography will shop around for the cheapest possible place to get the product. Others want a bit more (ex. B&H vs. using pricegrabber to get gear -- even we have our own preferences for purchasing.)

The market may be a little more saturated by prosumer cameras with the D50/70 and Rebel XT, but IMO the professional market isn't greatly suffering because of it. I may be the only one who feels this way, but it's my honest opinion. :)

[jessica.]

I'm not entirely sure that this thread didn't change from "Uncle Photographer" to all about AvSRoCkCO1067 :again:, however, I've been on both ends I think. I started kind of young and did it right. Right by my own vision. I went to school and then landed a job with a photographer who has been doing it for 30+ years. I learned more from him than any class taught me. Even through his purist ways--which ended up rubbing off on me, we both made our money two ways; weddings and commercial product photographer. A large client base of ours were interior designers and architects, but when the canon 300 hit we didn't hear from those people nearly as much. Though their photos weren't nearly the quality, they did the job. You have to know that we shot with large format cameras and brought our own lamps and bounces and what not. There wasn't this point and shoot with the on-board flash or even a slave that we bought at adorama the night before.

Bottom line with us and then me as he grew tired of the weddings mostly, was that we were indeed having to push our way through events getting smacked in the head by the d50's of the time with the longest lenses and such. In the end, our success was our greatest failure. For wedding packages we offered an 8x10 or 11x14 platinum print on rag. That process alone is worth mucho bucks. The 8x10 and 11x14 were contact prints. (that means that the negatives were THAT big for anyone who has no idea what a contact print is). But the process is very hands on and it's a process that I love. You cannot replace that...you can come close on a computer, but you won't ever replace it. At any rate, people simply couldn't see the benefit of it any longer when the new printers were coming out with new papers and such. To them, they loved the look, but found similar results on a pc. Our success was our end...but there are no regrets.

As far as me. I went down a different path. I have not lost interest, but I think, like the OP in a way, there is just so many people out there with a camera calling themself a photographer, that it just doesn't make sense to plan a career around it. At least for me that is. In time I'll revamp my website and start shooting around town again, but 50+ hours at work and full time grad school does not afford me much time to mess around.

I read through that "how to become a 17 year old photographer" and just about laughed. I kept my comments to myself though, because when I was 17 I thought I had all the answers too. :)

We're never going to get away from Uncle Photographer. He is here to stay. But as it was said before, if you don't have something unique to offer, you're just another Uncle Photographer imho.

[mlrproducts]

I was reading a similar thread on another forum, and the quote was made:

"It isn't crowded at the top."

Opinions?

[njmac]

I was reading a similar thread on another forum, and the quote was made:

"It isn't crowded at the top."

Opinions?

haha, well it's probably out of most people's financial reach to have Heinz Kluetmeier (http://www.apple.com/aperture/photoprofiles/?kluetmeier) be the little league team photographer or Joe Buissink (http://www.apple.com/aperture/photoprofiles/?buissink) to be their wedding photographer :p

Actually, I tried to make that point earlier. Its the middle of the photography range that really loses out. If you take fantastic pictures - even to the point that you are the Kluetmeier of the little league set, at that level YOU CANNOT COMPETE WITH FREE!

Sorry for yelling but that is a huge difference from the Life magazine, National Geographic photogs, the professional sports shooters - They will get top dollar because the magazines won't hire the mail room kid's uncle because he has a new D70 and will volunteer to shoot for free.

In contrast to that, in the middle area where you have wedding photographers and youth sports it is increasingly difficult to command a decent salary because people will take "good enough" for a cheap price and that doesn't happen in the top tier with the cream of the crop.

The photogs in the cream of the crop of the middle tier are constantly being told " Yeah, everyone loves your pictures, and you've always done a great job... but.... one of the teachers said they will take pictures of the school football team for free and we (the team) get to sell the pictures ourselves and make the profit.... yeah,yeah, we know he's not as good as you but the parent's really don't care"

So what's the cream of the crop to do? Get a day job.

EDIT: No, I don't believe the industry is as dire as that. I was just illustrating a point that does happen. I think the smart photographers offer things that keep them in business and sets them apart from the rest, its just becoming more difficult.