Decent shooters giving it away... [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Mike R

3rd of October 2007 (Wed), 21:13

A problem I'm having is that I have an agreement with a HS Booster Club to cover the entire sports program (post shots on line for parents to purchase, give part of the proceeds to the booster club) There is a parent who comes to the football games and takes about 300-500 shots per game, Using her camera as a PnS. She then posts ALL on line for parents to take! I have cut back the number of football games I will attend for the school and concentrate on the sports where the parents want a higher quality shot/print and want to support the schools athletic program. There is going to be one night game that she will not be able handle with her equipment so I will go to that one.
I have sold some of the football shots but not nearly what I have for another school where I'm the only photographer on the sidelines, except for the media, and that school doesn't get any of the proceeds.

JoesLdy

3rd of October 2007 (Wed), 22:32

That is a problem here as well. It really pisses me off! I think while it is their business, they are DEVALUING mine. Because they have the luxury to go out and purchase a camera we professionals use, does not mean they are professionals.

I think in the end it is going to cause a lot of hassle if you really want to run a business as far as regulation etc... because these people don't really take in to consideration what kind of work goes in to a wedding- and they get in over their heads. People are going to "fall victim" to this, sue, and it will be a problem down the line.

In the mean time, it leaves others having to compete with their prices. You get what you pay for yes, but when the gap is 1000.00 or more- people start to lean toward the cheap no matter how good you are.

I market on craigslist. My wedding ad is for 500.00 because that is as low as I could go. If I put an ad out for less, I doubt I would get ANY response. This includes full day coverage, and LOW RES images on a CD, online ordering, and ala carte print prices. I normally charge 1500.00 for this type of work- on a "talent fee" basis.... but I went this low specifically for craigslist. I get no response STILL! The response I DO get- is usually "well so and so does it for 250.00."

WHAT? I couldn't even FATHOM standing up all day for that amount of money- let alone giving people my copyrights!

It's really pushed me away from weddings. I refuse to be cut throat, or devalue my own work any more than I have to keep up with these people. Eventually either the public will realize that it's a big fat scam- and they will go away... then I will try weddings again. Or they will be embraced and I will never ever go back to weddings.

Then again- you also have to take in to account the demographics of craigslist marketing anyway. I mean- when I put this 500.00 ad up I fully expected to get people who were broke, having small weddings and needed a solution etc...

I even have a "pro bono" wedding coming up that I thought I was helping out a bride- I go to the girls house and it's a million dollar home in a very high end neighborhood. Disgusting!

I dunno... I guess it's the luck of the draw on who you reach- and whether they have the good sense not to hire some amateur with expensive equipment. I'm adding a page to my website regarding these people- it's called "Buyer Beware!" and will include how to properly look for a photographer- will be an informative thing for my clients- and if they go elsewhere at least I know they are well informed on what they are buying.

A

Browsing my local Craigslist, there are all kinds of decent (photographers GIVING away their wedding and portrait work. 8 hours shooting+DVD+all rights = $400. Sure, we're competing against the soccer moms w/10mp point-n-shoots. And I know...it's their business, they can charge whatever they want; and I am working to be a top quality photographer - not just "another" photographer. Still, this CAN'T be helping our business overall...

S.Horton

3rd of October 2007 (Wed), 22:50

Here, video sells, pictures are a commodity.

Hand out cards, go after the parents with the money, ego, and desire to get a poster-sized print (or bighead equivalent) and/or heavily PP'd custom cards, custom posters, then offer them a private, focus-player shoot for about $350 plus prints/products. Best bet is private schools or, a close second, high-income districts.

How?

Show up with your best work, your gear, be friendly, chat it up. Believe it or not, the PWAC gets the 'business' because they know the people, not because their work is better or even nearly as good as yours. This makes interpersonal sales paramount to your success.

Here's the catch -- You'll have to shoot more than one event to do this. Those people have to get used to seeing you and like you.

Finally, realize that the people who want 'free' stuff were never even prospects for you as a businessperson. Why? Their price-point is zero.

About your 'pro bono' -- just say something came up, decline it. If you do the gig for zero, you'll just be unhappy. It isn't worth it, IMO, as that bride is clearly deceptive by silence.

sfaust

3rd of October 2007 (Wed), 23:03

Don't let it piss you off, just rise to be better. The people looking for cheap photographers on craigslist, and those photographers going after then are perfect for each other. They will each fill their others needs. There is no reason you should feel the need to go after that market. Stick with your $2,500 package and ignore the $500 ones.

BMW doesn't care that Hyundai has a $10K car, nor will they discount their cars to compete in that market. They are BMW, their cars sell for 10 times more, and they make no excuses for it. If you look around on the road, there are lots of BMW's out there, as well as Hyundai's.

Pick the market you want to compete in, and don't worry about the other markets. If ones portraits are worth $500 a session, there is no reason to worry about the department store selling theirs at $19.95. It doesn't devalue your work, its just a different market.

Craigslist is all about getting something for nothing, or as cheaply as possible. If you are selling $2,500 wedding packages normally, craigslist isn't a viable marketing avenue for you. Move on, and let them be.

A client that truly wants excellent images understands they won't find it in a $400 a wedding photographer, and that they will need to pay a decent fee. Find the type of clients you want to work with, and ignore all the other fluff. We could spend hours talking about how people with a new camera are ruining the market, but thats hours that we've lost that we could have been marketing to the right clients, those that value our work and are willing to pay a fair wage for it.

Find out who your real clients are, then market to them and ignore the rest.

c71clark

3rd of October 2007 (Wed), 23:22

Curtis N

3rd of October 2007 (Wed), 23:28

Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.
1) You need to be better than "decent".
2) You need to convince potential clients that you're worth worth what you charge. It's called marketing.

Over Actor

3rd of October 2007 (Wed), 23:35

Im new yeah but just to throw something out there. I know that when someon says hey Im new Im shooting this can I get an Idea what Im supposed to charge ect.. and every replie has a link to what should you charge thread...that has no going rates in certain areas for information. Or someone replies you should charge whatever you want..ect.
Where Im from half the people have desposable camera on the tables and uncle daddy with a 1980 camcorder. Nobody cares.

Although I have seen one good thread with some price Ideas and it started just like this thread....it was the real estate photo thread..

delhi

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 00:13

BMW vs. Hyundai example is weak. Years of heritage, perception of prestige etc allows BMW to dictate prices. Try again.

Hogloff

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 00:28

The BMW/Hyundai example isn't that good, as there are several very obvious differences between the 2 cars, and even more if you drive both and compare. But for someone who doesn't do this (and therefore does not understand the real differences between PnS mom's and a pro's pictures), they see 2 pictures, both "look" good, and one is cheap. Will they notice the DOF, or the pic-sharp focus, or recognize the precise timing of the shot, the framing, etc... ? Probably not.
Just carry on with what you are doing, but maybe take some time to start educating the parents. Show them why your pictures are worth it. Show them the differences between a PnS shot and your's.

The quality is for the parents to decide. If the parents cannot see the difference in quality between your shots and the so called "Soccer mom P&S shots", then maybe, just maybe your shots are not all that great. You needing to point out how much better your shots are ( DOF, framing, timing etc... ) to the parents tells me this is not evident in your photos. If you want to compete against the weekend warrior photo hobbiest, your end result better be heads and shoulders above your hobbiest competition or your business is in trouble. With the influx of so many people using high quality digital cameras, this problem will just keep on getting bigger.

csm328

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 08:50

Look at the BIG PICTURE: DSLR is now available to the regular community at affordable prices. It's not enough to just have the camera anymore. It's also not enough to offer products that are easily available online. It's also not enough to compile, edit, copy, integrate into a DVD and offer other little tid bids. All these things are easily learned by anyone with a computer. If you want to learn how to smooth skin, do a search for 'photoshop skin smoothing' on YouTube and see how many video tutorials you find.

What we need to do is go above and beyond what the 'soccer mum' and computer savvy person with an interest in photography is capable of. That means artistic expression, developing our own actions, techniques and bundles that can't be replicated with a small amount of brain power. It means building a name and then making yourself paramount to the success of capturing the moment. Equipment is the biggest expense and even that is not enough these days. It's all about attitude, forethought and expressive technique, coupled with some hard-nosed advertising. The art of being a wedding photographer is dieing. What's emerging is the art of digital photographic expressionism and it's applicable across all photographic genres.

Evolve or die.

Steve Parr

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 09:35

The BMW/Hyundai example isn't that good, as there are several very obvious differences between the 2 cars

I guess I'll ask the obvious question which naturally rises from the above comment: If a customer doesn't see obvious differences between two photos, why would they pay for the more expensive one?

I disagree with the opinion that they won't notice the DOF, or the pic-sharp focus, or recognize the precise timing of the shot, the framing, etc., as these have an overall impact on the photo. Someone looking at such a photo, compared to one without those qualities, will see it as a "better" shot. They may not be able to describe why it's better, but that doesn't mean they won't notice a difference...

stathunter

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 09:48

Typically you get what you pay for. Someone paying $400 for a wedding should not expect much.
Funny story I attended a ceremony the other day. The "photographer" was horrible.....he almost ran into the bride and groom at the alter. He was litterly running around the couple during the ceremony.
After the ceremony I asked someone from the wedding party who he was related to. I was told that he was the "professional" photographer they found on Craigslist...................sheeesh. He was using a low end nikon with the camera flash and running around like a bozo. They got what they paid for. :rolleyes:

bacchanal

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 09:54

Part of the problem is that being a pro isn't just about taking good photographs. It's about guaranteeing a certain level of product in just about any situation...no excuses for equipment failure etc. A 'decent shooter' can produce pro quality images, but are they prepared to do so under the worst of conditions? That's why the pro's should get the higher prices...it's not just about quality.

cosworth

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 10:00

klynam

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 10:15

Here, video sells, pictures are a commodity.

Dont count on this for long. HD handycams w/ 60gig drives for $500, complete with editing software, plus the little DVD burner in every home computer?

This may be the new reality: Information is everywhere and technology is affordable. Let's face it, anyone with even a passing interest in photography has the opportunity to buy very good equipment any day of the week and learn how to use it in a matter weeks. The "mysterious" world that was photography - manual everything, film, processing, labs, lights, etc. - has largely vanished. The curtain has been pulled back on the wizard and lots of people think they can do this just as well as the next person. Most are wrong, some are right. Hopefully, I'm one of the ones who was right...lol.

poloman

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 10:47

There are many situations where an inexperienced shooter will fail. Shooting under a pavilion on a bright sunny day comes to mind. Not everyone has an eye for composition. Post processing is an art. Don't we see a lot of it done poorly? Once a photog has failed to please a bride, any bride, the ruse is over.

sfaust

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 11:31

But for someone who doesn't do this (and therefore does not understand the real differences between PnS mom's and a pro's pictures), they see 2 pictures, both "look" good, and one is cheap. Will they notice the DOF, or the pic-sharp focus, or recognize the precise timing of the shot, the framing, etc... ? Probably not.

That is exactly my point! They are not the right customer, so move on. They won't see the difference in a BMW either!

If they can't see the difference between a Hyundai and a BMW, to them there is no difference between the two and thus are not a potential BMW customer. BMW is smart, and won't target or waste marketing dollars on them.

If a potential photography customer can't see the difference between to images, the same principle applies. They aren't a potential client of the higher end photographer. And that photographer should be spending his time marketing to those that appreciate the difference in quality.

sfaust

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 11:35

BMW vs. Hyundai example is weak. Years of heritage, perception of prestige etc allows BMW to dictate prices. Try again.

And why wouldn't this apply to photography? Years of experience, years of marketing perception, prestige, and producing excellent work! Yea, I think that photographer would be able to write his own ticket. And I don't think he would be looking on craigslist for clients.

csm328

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 11:43

I think that any photographer trying to earn a living SHOULD be using craigslist as an advertising medium. competing with a $400.00 package shouldnt be the motivation NOT to use it. What he should be doing is showing potential clients why his package ins't $400.00 and selling his services based on professional ability and skill. show them why you are a BMX and not a hyundai. educate them and they will come.

And why wouldn't this apply to photography? Years of experience, years of marketing perception, prestige, and producing excellent work! Yea, I think that photographer would be able to write his own ticket. And I don't think he would be looking on craigslist for clients.

airfrogusmc

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 12:39

Dont count on this for long. HD handycams w/ 60gig drives for $500, complete with editing software, plus the little DVD burner in every home computer?

This may be the new reality: Information is everywhere and technology is affordable. Let's face it, anyone with even a passing interest in photography has the opportunity to buy very good equipment any day of the week and learn how to use it in a matter weeks. The "mysterious" world that was photography - manual everything, film, processing, labs, lights, etc. - has largely vanished. The curtain has been pulled back on the wizard and lots of people think they can do this just as well as the next person. Most are wrong, some are right. Hopefully, I'm one of the ones who was right...lol.

I think what you're missing is no amount of equipment is going to teach the photographer lighting, composition, when to take the photograph,or how to be a professional. I agree this is going to weed out the riff raff and make it better for those that weather the storm. If you've priced yourself out of that market and have a solid client base those photographers shouldn't be a threat. Like Cos said it keeps the cheap tire kickers for making the call to you.

imhotep

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 13:13

Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.
1) You need to be better than "decent".
2) You need to convince potential clients that you're worth worth what you charge. It's called marketing.

Agreed. Everything changes and we need the ingenuity to change with it. Photo books and printing services aren't the only markets to struggle against online alternatives. The photography industry isn't unique in this regard.

Mario.

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 13:18

I love shooters like this. They remove the crappy customers from my contact list.

Seriously, I DO NOT want to deal with a bride who wants to pay $400 and no prints. I love craigslist budget shooters. They thin the herd.

Thank YOOOOOOOU! Someone who finally gets it! :D

I absolutely agree. I don't deal with cheap customers - cheap photographers aren't a threat to me.

cfpackerfan

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 14:15

Where Im from half the people have desposable camera on the tables and uncle daddy with a 1980 camcorder. Nobody cares.

Uncle Daddy? Where do you live? :shock:

;) :p Just messing with you.

Carry on. Interesting stuff here.

delhi

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 14:54

And why wouldn't this apply to photography? Years of experience, years of marketing perception, prestige, and producing excellent work! Yea, I think that photographer would be able to write his own ticket. And I don't think he would be looking on craigslist for clients.

I just did a quick round the block survey whether people know a Stephen Faust photographer extraodinaire. Nope. Nada. Then I asked if they know what is BMW..... try again.

notapro

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 15:06

I love shooters like this. They remove the crappy customers from my contact list.

Seriously, I DO NOT want to deal with a bride who wants to pay $400 and no prints. I love craigslist budget shooters. They thin the herd.

best thing I've read all day.

I considered doing cheap weddings on the principle that I can't prove my worth yet, but I decided that my time is worth too much to me for that and I don't want to get stuck in that market. Instead I'm working on perfecting portraiture and covering events for non-profits (free but I don't mind there) and hoping for 2nd shooting experience until I can charge what I'd like to.

I may never be worth $5K, but I don't want to be the cheap wedding photographer, either. I'll leave it to those that don't mind working their butts off and giving up their family time for $50 profit.

Hogloff

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 15:32

If a potential photography customer can't see the difference between to images, the same principle applies. They aren't a potential client of the higher end photographer. And that photographer should be spending his time marketing to those that appreciate the difference in quality.

Or maybe there is not difference in quality. Just because you earn a living from photography does not mean you produce better images than the hobbiest. For example, a named brand pair of jeans for $150 has no difference in quality compared to a pair of jeans from my favourite work store costing $25.

airfrogusmc

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 15:45

Or maybe there is not difference in quality. Just because you earn a living from photography does not mean you produce better images than the hobbiest. For example, a named brand pair of jeans for $150 has no difference in quality compared to a pair of jeans from my favourite work store costing $25.

One thing that seems to separate allot of professionals from the non pros and (I call anyone not working full time a non pro not out of disrespect but as a point for discussion) is one word CONSISTENCY. If your a pro and have been doing it for any length of time you won't stay in the biz if you are not consistent. And another aspect that can't be measured like jeans is talent, personality and professionalism.

airfrogusmc

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 15:51

best thing I've read all day.

I considered doing cheap weddings on the principle that I can't prove my worth yet, but I decided that my time is worth too much to me for that and I don't want to get stuck in that market. Instead I'm working on perfecting portraiture and covering events for non-profits (free but I don't mind there) and hoping for 2nd shooting experience until I can charge what I'd like to.

I may never be worth $5K, but I don't want to be the cheap wedding photographer, either. I'll leave it to those that don't mind working their butts off and giving up their family time for $50 profit.

One thing young photographers don't sometimes understand when they are just getting started is once you've made your market it can be very difficult to move up. The folks willing to spend the big $$$ won't even put you into consideration. Once you start working for free its hard to start charging and the loyalty is usually not there. Don't get me wrong I donate my time to several very deserving non for profits and its things I care deeply about and don't mind doing that but to just give yourself away in hopes of getting work in the future usually never pans out. When I bid on a job and the client asks for any kind of discount up front I always say give me 5 or more good jobs a year and we can then talk about possible discounts. Usually once I have worked a couple times for a client the discount conversation never reappears.

zacker

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 15:52

dont you just feel like the local supermarket in a sea of Super Walmarts?

klynam

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 16:00

rhys

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 17:27

Hang on. People are getting irate over people charging $400 for a wedding. I don't get it. If they provide a DVD/CD of images only and charge $400 then more power to them. My best guess is that such people are trying to pick up the crumbs to get their system paid for and to get some extra income. The people that would pay $400 for a wedding just are not going to spend $2500 on a wedding. They just don't have that amount of money.

It's like Microsoft getting pissy because people pirated their OS. The kind of people that would use a pirated OS are not going to pay for a genuine copy. They just don't get that. Heck, when I was in Eastern Europe, a lot of companies saved their data onto an external hard drive then every 30 days - when XP refused to work unless a valid key was used, they would reformat and reinstall. So... Once a month they reformat and reinstall. The benefit - no need to buy an OS and the hidden benefit - the registry can't get too screwed up nor viruses cause too much problem.

airfrogusmc

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 17:32

Sure, anyone standing next to a BMW and a Hyundai can tell which is the premium product. If we could get people to a/b our photos and theirs, I bet we'd make more sales and get more bookings.

Here's the rub: lowballers keep the conversations of value and quality from ever happening. In doing so, they short-change themselves, the clients, and the profession as a whole. Worse still, they promulgate the myth. After all, what do people think when they pay $400 for a DVD full of average (or worse) quality shots? They think, "Heck, I could do that. I could drop $1500 on some equipment and post on Craigslist. Then I'd be making $400 for this too. Even better, I'll only charge $300 - yeah, that's the ticket!!!"

Thus we have an increasing supply servicing decreasing demand, with falling levels of quality. Not exactly the capitalistic vision of America. But it sure works well for Wally World...

Thats why you have to figure out a way to separate you and your work from the wal-mart mentality. The key word is consistency. The bride is spending thousands on her dress, cake, flowers, reception and shes gong to trust those moments on a day that happens only once (for some :lol:) to someone willing to work for about min. wage? Separate yourself so its not even part of your potential clients thought process. What do you offer that they can't in any way supply? Your vision and professionaism.

klynam

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 17:35

Not irate, just observing the effect lowballers are having on the market.

sfaust

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 18:38

I just did a quick round the block survey whether people know a Stephen Faust photographer extraodinaire. Nope. Nada. Then I asked if they know what is BMW..... try again.

While I do own a BMW, I'm just a Hyundai photographer. So no surprise you didn't get an answer :). But try again and use real photographer extraordinaries (Weston, Adams, etc.) and I'm sure you get a whole different response. Not exactly sure about why you are trying to make this about me either.

Either way, you are really missing the point. If they can't tell the different between a good print and a bad print, they will shop on price because they can't judge quality. If they do know the difference, then they will shop on quality and not price.

The OP I was responding to said that he normally sells $2,500 weddings. If he can sell $2,500 weddings, his time would be far better spent toward selling more $2,500 weddings rather than servicing a $500 wedding.

If you don't like the BMW/Hyundai, make your own by picking any high quality and low quality product.

MaDProFF

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 18:52

That is a problem here as well. It really pisses me off! I think while it is their business, they are DEVALUING mine. Because they have the luxury to go out and purchase a camera we professionals use, does not mean they are professionals.

I think in the end it is going to cause a lot of hassle if you really want to run a business as far as regulation etc... because these people don't really take in to consideration what kind of work goes in to a wedding- and they get in over their heads. People are going to "fall victim" to this, sue, and it will be a problem down the line.

In the mean time, it leaves others having to compete with their prices. You get what you pay for yes, but when the gap is 1000.00 or more- people start to lean toward the cheap no matter how good you are.

I market on craigslist. My wedding ad is for 500.00 because that is as low as I could go. If I put an ad out for less, I doubt I would get ANY response. This includes full day coverage, and LOW RES images on a CD, online ordering, and ala carte print prices. I normally charge 1500.00 for this type of work- on a "talent fee" basis.... but I went this low specifically for craigslist. I get no response STILL! The response I DO get- is usually "well so and so does it for 250.00."

WHAT? I couldn't even FATHOM standing up all day for that amount of money- let alone giving people my copyrights!

It's really pushed me away from weddings. I refuse to be cut throat, or devalue my own work any more than I have to keep up with these people. Eventually either the public will realize that it's a big fat scam- and they will go away... then I will try weddings again. Or they will be embraced and I will never ever go back to weddings.

Then again- you also have to take in to account the demographics of craigslist marketing anyway. I mean- when I put this 500.00 ad up I fully expected to get people who were broke, having small weddings and needed a solution etc...

I even have a "pro bono" wedding coming up that I thought I was helping out a bride- I go to the girls house and it's a million dollar home in a very high end neighborhood. Disgusting!

I dunno... I guess it's the luck of the draw on who you reach- and whether they have the good sense not to hire some amateur with expensive equipment. I'm adding a page to my website regarding these people- it's called "Buyer Beware!" and will include how to properly look for a photographer- will be an informative thing for my clients- and if they go elsewhere at least I know they are well informed on what they are buying.

A

If you were walking down the high street, and you saw something you wanted to buy, it was in 2 shops and one was cheaper, what shop would you buy it from?,,, it is called business, competition, rise to the challenge, in the end as long as you don't charge way more, and you take better photos than the others charging less you will win in the end....... perhaps though you are over charging ???????

rhys

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 20:27

If you were walking down the high street, and you saw something you wanted to buy, it was in 2 shops and one was cheaper, what shop would you buy it from?,,, it is called business, competition, rise to the challenge, in the end as long as you don't charge way more, and you take better photos than the others charging less you will win in the end....... perhaps though you are over charging ???????

Don't forget also that a lot of people are only paid $10 per hour. To people used to low pay, the chance of $400 for a day's work is worth leaping at. To people paid low wages, inexpensive budget photographers are all they can afford.

S.Horton

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 20:44

Ever wonder why a hairdresser needs a license, and photogs don't?

I have.

sfaust

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 22:46

I always thought hairdressers needed a license because of the health issues and following the health codes. That way if they refuse to follow the health codes, they can yank their license and they can't practice. Much like restaurants, health spas, etc. I don't have anything to base that one, just my perception.

cosworth

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 22:49

Hairdressers use more than scissors. They shave, dye, style etc. and handle sharp, life ending instruments and chemicals.

Got my first bad haircut in 10 years last night. It's not like I could have chosen some haircut proofs and picked the best one.

One shot only.

Curtis N

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 23:50

Got my first bad haircut in 10 years last night.Wow. How long was it?
I wanna see before/after shots.

c71clark

4th of October 2007 (Thu), 23:59

notapro

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 00:17

It seems that there may be markets where the line between pro and PnS'er is thinner. Maybe sprts is one of those? Specifically, maybe youth sports is one?

In this I will say that the Digital revolution has hurt the industry. The barrier to entry was quite high before digital. I don't think there is a magic bullet.

It kinda bothers me when people say this. Many film SLRs weren't that expensive, and supposing you bought cheap film and gave the couple the negatives to develop at the supermarket, it wouldn't cost that much to be a cheapo wedding photographer in film either, and your results could be expected to be FAR superior to anyone with a Point and shoot film camera, particularly up until the introduction of more advanced PnS cameras just before digital came into the market. If you're talking medium format, then obviously that was more expensive, but any SLR could produce good results too, in the right hands.

I'm not saying digital hasn't affected the industry--but I don't think the major factor has been the cost of equipment, which is what I assume you meant by barrier to entry.

MJPhotos24

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 02:43

Cost has been a HUGE influence on the industry, when I started in pro sports there just wasn't many shooting because they couldn't get the shot in one roll of film (and couldn't afford to shoot much more than that because they were backing the bill), and then they had no clue how to get the images to the clients (magazines, etc). Now with digital, it's not the cost of the body but the fact they can shoot 1,000 pics and have one decent one to email in 5 mins after they crop and photoshop the crap outta it (the lab didn't do that for them before), while the pro shooters are shooting 1,000 pics and getting 900 good ones with no PS. Adjustments have to be made, but in the long run your business plan is YOUR plan, and you can't worry about what others are doing. One company just said to us long time photogs they havent raised the prices of photo usage in 10 years because now they have no problem getting shooters, even though the quality is down - 10 years ago they raised the prices a few times to keep the good shooters because they noticed them leaving - now that its all digital, that loyalty from the company using freelancers is gone...they're losing great photogs, the picture quality is going down, the sales may decrease as well without those eye catching images, and maybe they'll wake up - maybe they won't and be just fine anyways.

With no offense, I notice a lot of shooters that are not very good but they market themselves as great photogs and sell cheaply, the photos are mediocre at best, but parents will buy (sports photos) because of price (family = budget) and the competition doesn't market as well being larger and having bigger fish to fry. Being local and shooting pro sports people always want me to shoot there kids, it's difficult going from a deal worth $750 for a photo to offering a package for $20, but it has to be done and has to be approached totally different. My prices are too low and will be raisded a good amount, but not in the rip off category, over the next year, but after pooling research from parets, there won't be many complaints - they know what they are paying for. All you can do is be fair, have a good business plan, have good quality, compete but dont be the cheapest and don't be the most expensive - unless you're worth it that is ;)

Curtis N

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 03:09

primoz

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 03:41

Actually it's quite right comparison. If customer doesn't see difference in your photos vs. soccer mom photos, he will go and buy cheaper ones. If customer doesn't see difference between 100k eur worth BMW and 10k eur worth Hyundai, he will go and buy Hyundai. It really is exactly same. I'm not saying there's no difference between Hyundai and BMW, but I'm also not saying there's no difference between my photos and someone's photos taken with pocket camera. But if customer doesn't see this difference, then they are not right customer for me either... just as they are not for BMW.
And even here, you have people who don't see difference, but are ready to pay more to have photo of famous photographer, just as someone wants to have BMW because it's name. There's just problem, that there's not 100.000 Ansel Adams around ;)

rhys

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 10:53

People will always go for what they perceive as the best value. Just like there are hundreds of cheapo shops (pound shops, dollar shops etc) selling inferior tools that are made of what I call butter steel (so soft it bends when you look at it), there are hundreds of people ready to buy it all.

Steve Parr

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 11:47

I always get a kick out of this discussion.

Someone advertising on Craig's List should have no impact on someone who doesn't. Someone who charges $400.00 for a wedding should have no impact on someone who charges $2,500.00. The people who are shopping on Craig's List likely aren't the people willing to fork over a couple grand for a photographer, and those advertising on Craig's List aren't looking to make a couple grand. The "pro" never enters the equation.

I don't know specifics, but I would think that "pros" work through wedding coordinators, or have agencies which get them gigs. I doubt a good wedding coordinator is going to be skimming Craig's List to find a wedding photographer.

People want to complain about the "low ballers" and how anyone with a few bucks can now pick up a decent DSLR and provide good images. Hey, if that's the case, you'd really better learn to deal with it, because it's reality.

There's a flip-side to this discussion, too. I would love to see the conversation regarding wedding photographers who get paid $2,500.00 or more, and then offer crap results.

Not everyone looks to earn a living with photography. Those who don't aren't any real threat to those who do. The "pro" will continue to earn a living, and the amateur will continue to make just a few bucks here and there...

rhys

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 12:49

I see nothing wrong with people who're starting out, advertising on Craigslist. I wonder whether photo sessions can be auctioned on ebay. Could be interesting to try!

sfaust

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 14:32

ThomasOwenM

5th of October 2007 (Fri), 17:48

Just out of curiosity I pretended like I was shopping for a wedding photographer. I typed "wedding photography" into altavista and found a site that could locate photographers in my area if I put in my zip code. I made it a rule to check out the photo samples first and the prices second. When looking at the photos, I asked myself if I would be willing to pay any amount of money for them, whether it be $100 or $10,000.

In some cases the photos looked like mere snapshots to me. They were exposed properly and in focus, but that was the extent of the photographic skill. I wouldn't pay any amount of money for such shots. They wouldn't be worth $100 in my opinion. I could get the same quality if I loaned my 20D to a non-photographer friend and gave him a 30 minute crash course on how to use it. Without exception, the prices for these photographers was in the $250-$400 range.

Other sites showed much more promise. I saw photos that demonstrated knowledge of the craft and experience. On these sites I almost never found any prices less than $1200. The only exception was one that had a raw bare bones package -- ceremony only and a very limited number of prints -- for $900. And that site had a variety of packages ranging up to $5200. The $900 package was obviously for the purpose of being able to offer something for less than a grand as a draw and then to up-sell. The sites that started at $1200 were typically also bare bones with up-sells available. It was evident to me that to get anything of real value, you needed to spend at least $2500.

My verdict: If I were getting married, I wouldn't waste my money on any of the budget snappers. I might as well turn my 20D and 430 EX over to an inexperienced family member and let them do their best. To get the kind of quality that I would want to remember the special occassion by I would be prepared to pay at least $2500.

klynam

6th of October 2007 (Sat), 11:13

Out of "professional" curiosity :-) what was the website you found?

Hogloff

6th of October 2007 (Sat), 16:21

To get the kind of quality that I would want to remember the special occassion by I would be prepared to pay at least $2500.

Thats great if you have $2500 to spend...but what if you don't. Obviously, there is a market for the low cost wedding photos and obviously most people understand in today's world, you USUALLY ( notice i said usually ) get what you paid for. I got married in our appartment and had a budget photographer take some photos which came out quite good and with the money saved, we put into as a down payment on a house. At that time in my life, I would never spend $2500 on wedding photos. With the high cost of housing in my neck of the woods, I would recommend going cheap ( in fact I would do the photos ) for my kids weddings and have them put their money to more important things in life.

airfrogusmc

6th of October 2007 (Sat), 16:36

Very well said!

I would like to hear the conversations between the $10-15K wedding photographers talking about how all the $2,500 wedding photographers are killing their business. Unfortunately, its a discussion thats probably not happening since they are far too busy handling all their clients :)

I have a very good friend thats in that category and he shoots as many weddings a year as he wants and turns away as many as he shoots. He doesn't see any of this as a threat. In fact quite the opposite. I haven't shot weddings in ten years. When I stopped my min was $5500 and average was around $9000. I never saw the low end folks as a threat. My clients wouldn't have even considered them.

neil85

6th of October 2007 (Sat), 17:33

haha nice ...

although to me the fact he was using a "low end" camera has nothing to do with whether or not he is a pro or any good.

just the other week there was a sale in the FS section of a guy that spent $10k on a body & a couple lenses and was selling it all because "he still didnt get nice pictures" and was fraustrated and thought it was the gear.

the higher end bodies give you more options in the body, higher res pictures FF etc. but that doesnt mean a pro cant use a 30D which is technically the "low end" of canons pro digital cameras

XTi's etc. are their "consumer" Dslr's

Typically you get what you pay for. Someone paying $400 for a wedding should not expect much.
Funny story I attended a ceremony the other day. The "photographer" was horrible.....he almost ran into the bride and groom at the alter. He was litterly running around the couple during the ceremony.
After the ceremony I asked someone from the wedding party who he was related to. I was told that he was the "professional" photographer they found on Craigslist...................sheeesh. He was using a low end nikon with the camera flash and running around like a bozo. They got what they paid for. :rolleyes:

ThomasOwenM

6th of October 2007 (Sat), 22:46

Thats great if you have $2500 to spend...but what if you don't.

I would do what I said in the post. I would loan my 20D to a friend or family member and give him a crash course on how to use it. Granted, not everyone has a 20D to loan out, so maybe the $400 snapper photos are the right choice for some people. Definitely not for me, however. For me the $2500 would be worth every penny as long as I can get a very highly skilled professional who can get me high-end shots to last a lifetime. For certain things, I find it worth paying more for high quality. I'm not that way about cars, BTW. I couldn't care less if I ever own a BMW or a Porsche. I'm happy with a Saturn or a Honda.

Vigants

7th of October 2007 (Sun), 00:35

OP started with mention of wedding photography and 'soccer moms'. I think the two issues are worlds apart. A wedding absolutely has to be shot correctly that day, no matter what, no excuses. The soccer mom has many games to come up with decent shots. Would I ever consider paying big bucks to hire a pro to shoot my daughter's soccer game? Nope. Her wedding? Yes. Not because the pro will necessarily produce better pictures (although he/she likely will) but because I want to know that contingency planning is in place. I am paying as much for insurance as for the product itself.

Being a "pro" does not automatically confer superiority - many amateurs produce "professional" level results (in many fields) - but being a professional does imply a level of responsibility and the reasonable expectation of results - with no excuses. "Soccer mom" might have great gear and even great skills, but probably does not have a backup body, lens, etc.. So if something goes wrong there is no recovery.

Final comment - if a "pro's" customers cannot tell the difference in quality between their work and Soccer Mom's work, there are only a few possibilities, some of which are: (1) Soccer Mom is Good, (2) Pro Sucks, or (3) Customer is Blind. You should probably not spend much time marketing photography services to the Blind . . .

John Mireles

7th of October 2007 (Sun), 02:25

The rate that any business can charge is going to be directed related to how much competition there is for similar services. That's a basic, immutable fact that applies to everything from photography to gasoline. Without a doubt, digital technology has created an influx of new photographers - at all levels of the business, from low to mid to high end.

This influx has definitely impacted my business, even though I'm at the high end of the market. Some clients that a few years ago would have stepped up and paid more now seem to go with lower priced options. Where just a few years ago the competition pretty much sucked, now there's a fair amount of "good enough" options.

I imagine that this isn't the first time the photography profession has seen this sort of dramatic increase of competition. Back when film was invented and photographers were no longer required to coat their own glass plates, I'll bet that made it easier for a lot of newcomers to enter the business. Again, when roll film and 35mm took over from 4x5 sheet film, the technological barriers to entry dropped again.

What it means for everyone who wants to be successful in the photography business is that the work and the marketing has to be better than ever. The other option is to compete on price which is always tough since there's always someone willing to work for less. Either way, most photographers will end up working that much harder to just keep up with the status quo.

John

SingingSabre

7th of October 2007 (Sun), 04:40

Here's my comparison, as I've not charged for wedding photos (I don't care to deal with the pressure of a wedding shoot).

My main job is as a massage therapist. There are people offering far cheaper massages on Craigslist. Do I care? No. The people who don't want to pay more for a higher quality massage aren't going to pay more for a higher quality massage.

They're not devaluing my work. Only I have the power to devalue my work.

If you don't like charging $400 for a wedding package/shoot, then don't. But don't slam those who are. They're tackling a different demographic than you are.

c71clark

7th of October 2007 (Sun), 23:40

Vigants

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 08:15

sfaust

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 09:12

Technology marches on. I wonder what it will be like when digital video cameras are capturing frames that are high enough in resolution to use a photographs. Point the camcorder at the model, press record, then move around for a few minutes, and you scroll through the thousands of frames looking for the winner.... talk about easy. Ugh!

Like the Red Camera (http://www.dvpa.com/public/220.cfm), 60 frames per second at 11.4 megapixels.

It will be about $17,000. Less than a medium format digital, and about the same as two 1DsMkII bodies. Well within the reach of a pro shooter.

When they are widespread, It will change how we shoot some stills for sure. It will eliminate some photography jobs, but create new ones at the same time. There will be some unique opportunities for pros to make the big bucks when they understand how to use the technology in new and unique ways and market those talents. And the price will keep it out of the reach of many amateurs.

It won't eliminate the need for professionals, just like digital hasn't eliminated that need. Most of what pros bring to a job are experience, advanced technical, reliability, repeatability, creativity, knowledge of the industry, creative teams (stylists, MUAs, etc), and so on.

I think the introduction of that camera will be exciting for creativity. Think about how one might be able to use that camera to create images that are difficult or near impossible to capture any other way. And that you can now capture that at sizes that are usable in the commercial world, and there will be some cool images to be made and sold.

I will be buying one once the technology is sound, and its been proven to work and work well. I have no shame when it comes to shot gunning an image. If that's what it takes to get the right expression or fleeting moment for that image, than that's what it takes. There is always more than one decisive moment when shooting. You can capture one of them and thats all you get, or capture all of them and decide later :)

rhys

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 11:09

sfaust

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 11:28

Several problems here....

1. There's a hell of a lot of data to go through.
2. How're you going to process it all.
3. The camera might do all that but does it take decent photos?
4. What are the lenses like?

1. Its not different than video editing, you can jog/shuttle through the video and only grab the frames you need. I don't see it being any more time consuming that shooting a typical image. In fact probably faster on the capture side.

2. No need to process it all for stills. You only need to process the selected frames you want to keep for a still. But I can see the processing power required for editing video at such high resolutions, but that wouldn't affect us for stills.

3. Yes, it does. As good as any other DSLR. High quality sensor, high quality lenses, full featured.

4. You use an adapter, so you can put many different high quality lenses on it. Its has a standard PL mount so you can use any of the very high quality cine lenses. Or you can use an Nikon or Canon 35mm adapter, and use any of the lenses we are using today.

rhys

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 11:37

BethanieEvePhotography

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 11:51

Here is my thing...I'm trying to start my business. I'm trying to get my name out there. To do that, I decided to go with lower prices. Although I know that gives off a certain "you get what you pay for" and I don't like that. Also, living in a Military town, there seems to be TONS of competition. Everyone and their Mom is armed with a camera and calling it a business. So therefore I'm at a loss as what to do but to offer lower prices.

cosworth

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 11:59

So therefore I'm at a loss as what to do but to offer lower prices.

You need to change this. If you can make your images sell YOU, make your services sell YOU and make your delivery sell YOU, the competition will not be a worry as you will have to raise prices to follow supply and demand.

If you think you can only sell on price, then your customers will only buy on price. Get out of that loop by making superior product, delivering superior services.

There ARE people in your town that will pay more for good service and fantastic imagery. Make them come to you.

sfaust

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 12:03

Sounds interesting. It does mean continuous lighting is needed though so it's a case of ensuring the whole place is well lit and that probably means overhead lighting. It's going to make the lighting interesting and expensive.

Its different, but not any more expensive. In fact, continuous lighting is cheaper as you've noticed and commented on previously. The skills will be different then with strobes, but for photographers that use both it won't matter much, and not hard to learn for those that don't since the base principals are the same as strobe and available lighting.

It might mean investing more on quality fast lenses since you'll use the wider aperture more than with strobes (which IMO wide apertures create a nicer image anyway).

There will also be a lot of things it won't be good for. Such as product photography where you don't need to capture motion. It probably won't be suited for sports, since capturing that many frames during an entire game would compile an large amount of data. But for trying to capture movement or motion in some shots, it just might be perfect.

Its an industry changing camera in video or still fields. Lots of chatter on the camera, and how it will change things.

You need to change this. If you can make your images sell YOU, make your services sell YOU and make your delivery sell YOU, the competition will not be a worry as you will have to raise prices to follow supply and demand.

If you think you can only sell on price, then your customers will only buy on price. Get out of that loop by making superior product, delivering superior services.

There ARE people in your town that will pay more for good service and fantastic imagery. Make them come to you.

I can't agree more strongly with Cosworth. There is a reason a McDonalds can live across the street from a 4 star restaurant. If you compete on price, unless you can own that market you aren't going to make a decent living at it, but rather just struggle along. If you set yourself apart with exceptional service, products, and marketing/brand recognition, you can charge much more and you'll do very well in the end. Aim higher, push your creativity and skills, and charge what you need to in that higher market segment. Don't worry what's going on behind you, but rather focus on where you want to be.

rhys

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 12:27

Its different, but not any more expensive. In fact, continuous lighting is cheaper as you've noticed and commented on previously. The skills will be different then with strobes, but for photographers that use both it won't matter much, and not hard to learn for those that don't since the base principals are the same as strobe and available lighting.

Yes. I have been looking deeply into all sorts of lighting for my portable studio. Been getting all sorts of comments and criticisms for my ideas etc. I sway between continuous and flash and between studio flash and flashguns.

sapearl

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 12:38

I used to get upset about this sort of thing - then I figured I was just aggravating myself unecessarily. But does forces you to stay on your toes, continue to do better work and improve your talent, and provide top notch service.

A really fine wedding shooter is not threatened by this. I haven't hit that top mark myself yet, but I feel I'm pretty good and I don't get upset if I don't I "lose" the discount shoppers.

Quality wedding service is hard work, and I put a lot of effort and time into my product. I don't want to feel like I'm giving it away, or I'm going to want to stop doing it.;) I'd rather miss out on a bunch of cheap jobs and hold out for the more lucrative ones.

Besides, a lot of these shoppers will find out soon enough that they are getting what they are paying for. It's not to say that these discount guys are bad since there are some talented folks out there, but I've seen what the budget guys offer in my neck of the woods - and it's not a whole helluva' lot :D.

Browsing my local Craigslist, there are all kinds of decent (photographers GIVING away their wedding and portrait work. 8 hours shooting+DVD+all rights = $400. Sure, we're competing against the soccer moms w/10mp point-n-shoots. And I know...it's their business, they can charge whatever they want; and I am working to be a top quality photographer - not just "another" photographer. Still, this CAN'T be helping our business overall...

sapearl

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 12:52

Well said Jason - I agree with you :D.

I tried a little experiment about 6 months ago, since it's free and took little effort. I listed myself on Craigslist. I kept all of my prices EXACTLY the same, which is to say considerably more than the $400 Blue Light Special. I have not received a single email, phone call or query for my work.

Am I upset about this? Not a bit. Just about everybody else was advertising the low end - that's fine with me. Most of my clients have an idea what better work looks like and are happy to pay more for it.;)

I love shooters like this. They remove the crappy customers from my contact list.

Seriously, I DO NOT want to deal with a bride who wants to pay $400 and no prints. I love craigslist budget shooters. They thin the herd.

rhys

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 13:12

I honestly don't think you'll ever find worthwhile clients on craigslist nor worthwhile suppliers. It is, I rather suspect, a service more suitable for fencing stolen goods. Ebay is pretty much the same although with a more ritzy image. I managed a charity shop for a while in Britain and had several people referred to me by the courts who'd been sentenced to X hours community Service. In all cases they'd been selling stolen goods on ebay.

sapearl

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 13:28

True - but it's really always been that way in EVERY market that has become open to a larger number of people due to technological advances. True, they may not be that good at, but it didn't stop them from entering the marketplace and trying to make a go of it.

Once upon a time wedding work was only the venue of studio photographers with large format cameras. You had your formal portraits done in the studio and that was it.

Then medium format cameras came in big time and began catching on. Suddenly the portrait guy who spent all day in the studio could easily start roaming the churches and reception halls doing his formal as well as PJ work - or not. Some of these folks decided NOT to make the transition. They were comfortable in their studios.... didn't want to "suffer" change.

I faced a similar situation back in '05. I wasn't that studio pro doing large format work in his studio, but I did have some mighty fine Hasselblad FILM equipment.... which was just killing me from the standpoint of lab costs, no autofocus goodies, no zooms, no convenient ETTL... you get the picture. My "competitors" with all the latest and greatest were forcing me to make a choic, evolve, or die.

I chose to try and keep up with you guys - one of the smartest things I ever did :D.

Not irate, just observing the effect lowballers are having on the market.

sapearl

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 13:31

Whoaaahhhh Rhys - pretty strong words.... actually sort of comical :lol:. But in all fairness I don't really know enough about Craigslist to agree or disagree with you .

What I do know is that's where my daughter met her boyfriend - in the personals section. He's quite a nice guy and jockeying to become my son-in-law one of these days .:D

I honestly don't think you'll ever find worthwhile clients on craigslist nor worthwhile suppliers. It is, I rather suspect, a service more suitable for fencing stolen goods. Ebay is pretty much the same although with a more ritzy image. I managed a charity shop for a while in Britain and had several people referred to me by the courts who'd been sentenced to X hours community Service. In all cases they'd been selling stolen goods on ebay.

narlus

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 13:47

I can't agree more strongly with Cosworth. There is a reason a McDonalds can live across the street from a 4 star restaurant. If you compete on price, unless you can own that market you aren't going to make a decent living at it, but rather just struggle along. If you set yourself apart with exceptional service, products, and marketing/brand recognition, you can charge much more and you'll do very well in the end. Aim higher, push your creativity and skills, and charge what you need to in that higher market segment. Don't worry what's going on behind you, but rather focus on where you want to be.

true, but if a shooter is just starting out, odds are that the output isn't analogous to a 4 star restaurant.

rhys

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 15:04

sfaust

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 15:13

true, but if a shooter is just starting out, odds are that the output isn't analogous to a 4 star restaurant.

Very true, but the point being made was that low end shooters won't have much impact on shooters at higher market segments. McDonalds customers aren't going to the 4 star restaurant and asking for McDonalds prices.

And if they did, the 4 star restaurant would just kindly dismiss them, and send them on their way. They wouldn't drop their price to match, nor worry about loosing that customer. IMO, far too many photographers seem to think they need to match the lower prices, rather than set their sights on higher market customers and build a portfolio and skill set to get there.

Granted if they are a low end market photographer, they do have lots of competition from newcomers entering the market, some giving away their work. So to be successful in my opinion, they need to either move up as quickly as possible and get out of that market, wait until they have the skills to compete at a higher market before launching, or plan on 'owning' a major chunk of the low end market and make it a volume business.

If one can build up their skills, and be able to launch their business at the mid range of the market, I feel they have a much better chance of being successful over the photographer that launches early and has to deal with the price pressures in the low end of the market.

rhys

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 15:24

A lesson I learned long ago...

If you undervalue your work, people will undervalue you.

sapearl

8th of October 2007 (Mon), 15:29

Yep - put a cheapo tag on yourself and they'll assume that little goes into your work, or maybe that you're just not that good....

A lesson I learned long ago...

If you undervalue your work, people will undervalue you.

bdavisx

10th of October 2007 (Wed), 13:38

...If they can't see the difference between a Hyundai and a BMW, to them there is no difference between the two and thus are not a potential BMW customer...

Or in my case, regarding BMW vs. Hyundai, I can see the difference between the two, and could afford the BMW if I really wanted to, but I don't. My Saturn gets me from Point A to Point B just fine.

I think there are people in the same situation regarding photography, it's just not that important to them.

Again, it's the same outcome, you don't want to market to them either way.

JoesLdy

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 02:30

Exactly my point. This is a skilled craft. A true professional knows things about the craft that no novice could. You have to learn it through experience, class, or however you choose but NOONE can just pick up a SLR and immediately know how to use it.

What I see going on here is people buying Rebels, charging 250.00 a pop here in Ohio for photos they will snap in auto mode, not knowing anything about proper exposure, and ultimately you get what you pay for as others stated.

The problem with that is while they cut throat that way, it makes the rest of us who are trying to make a living and put a value to our services look greedy. Personally I can't charge over 2k for a wedding... not right now. I think it's just too much. So I dont do it!

But when you come in and you charge 250.00 to do a wedding shoot, with a point and shoot camera possibly even. You take a bunch of flat ordinary photographs, while the bride is posing dreaming of her lovely portraits that look like all the magazines and ones she's seen online- her MUST HAVE list is all set! But the novice shooter will not know how to bring out the beading detail in her dress, or reflect light back on to her to catch the glow from the sun in her veil and still light her face.

It does an injustice to our customer base, that there are no requirements to be able to call yourself a professional. That also devalues the profession, when you have a whole swarm of amateurs running around claiming to be better than you and cheaper too!

I think my last weekend will be this weekend- I don't even think I want to deal with it. I definitely will never market on craigslist again- the demographic isnt right anyway as someone else mentioned- I agree there!

Ever wonder why a hairdresser needs a license, and photogs don't?

I have.

sapearl

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 08:22

I understand your aggravation but these folks don't really concern me that much. let them offer their "Blue Light Specials." Clients who don't understand or care about TRUE quality won't consider $1500 - $3000 anyway so they don't bother me. You get what you pay for, and those who pay top buck - at least in the Midwest - know that they are getting the quality and expertise of which you speak. We won't be regarded as greedy.

As far as lack of minimal requirements for calling yourself a professional.... well, this is something you run into in many of the trades across various industries. The buyer has a responsibility to research a potential vendor in advance, check references, review samples of his/her work. If they expect to get a full service pro for $250, they're really being foolish and deserve what happens to them. Nobody is holding a gun to their head.

I agree with you about Craigslist - a lot of bargain basement folks there; not saying they are bad or anything because I honestly don't know, but when you read some of their bargain basement huckster pitches it really makes you wonder.

Sorry to hear you are bowing out JoesLdy - we all had to start somewhere. You really should try and stick it out a little more. Things will look up ;).

....The problem with that is while they cut throat that way, it makes the rest of us who are trying to make a living and put a value to our services look greedy. Personally I can't charge over 2k for a wedding... not right now. I think it's just too much. So I dont do it!
..........

It does an injustice to our customer base, that there are no requirements to be able to call yourself a professional. That also devalues the profession, when you have a whole swarm of amateurs running around claiming to be better than you and cheaper too!

I think my last weekend will be this weekend- I don't even think I want to deal with it. I definitely will never market on craigslist again- the demographic isnt right anyway as someone else mentioned- I agree there!

tofuboy

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 11:07

This sure is an old discussion.

My guess is photographers started whining about cheap cameras killing their business the day Kodak introduced the Box Brownie in 1900.

107 years later, there are still people making a living as photographers. It's because some people want the kinds of images that can only be created through talent, skill and experience. The market will determine what such images are worth, as it always has.

It's been going on longer than that. Portrait painters started whining when photography was invented... "oh no, all these people can just take a picture of someone, what will I paint?" They attacked photography saying it wasn't art... afterall, photography is just a mechanical and chemical process... what art is involved in that?

asxu

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 11:15

don't worry about brides + grooms that purchase these budget photographers, they are the brides + grooms you don't want in the first place. you want brides + grooms who have respect for photographs.

sapearl

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 11:26

Absolutely agree - either it totally makes no difference to them the kind of quality they will be getting ( or not) - or they will see the error of their ways once the product is completed.

don't worry about brides + grooms that purchase these budget photographers, they are the brides + grooms you don't want in the first place. you want brides + grooms who have respect for photographs.

Steve Parr

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 11:29

don't worry about brides + grooms that purchase these budget photographers, they are the brides + grooms you don't want in the first place. you want brides + grooms who have respect for photographs.

How sad that "respect" (whatever that is in this context) for a photo is measured solely in dollars and cents...

JoesLdy

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 12:26

My worry is that the only people left who want to pay a decent rate are going to be the uber picky types and will make it hell- KWIM?

I wont be bowing out of photography all together, I am just going to try my best to stay away from weddings. Weddings are what inspired me to pick up the camera professionally in the first place- I wanted to be a part of that magic moment in people's lives- give them unforgettable pictures etc... (perhaps I romanticized too much and that was my own downfall) and it just seems like- that doesnt matter anymore. They just want a CD, and you to show up. It really makes me feel, "non creative" more like a robot...

So Im trying to pick myself up and move on to commercial and alternative lifestyles work. I might still do maternity portraiture, but I think babies and weddings are just out. And sadly a large chunk of why is the "competition".

I've seen some of the photos that come out of those shoots- wow....

I agree with you about the buyer responsibility part as well. I am putting a page on my site to warn people... and give them hints on choosing the right photographer etc... I think it will be a good addition. I am being careful not to be malicious... just giving them the facts.

don't worry about brides + grooms that purchase these budget photographers, they are the brides + grooms you don't want in the first place. you want brides + grooms who have respect for photographs.

notapro

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 12:29

My worry is that the only people left who want to pay a decent rate are going to be the uber picky types and will make it hell- KWIM?

I wont be bowing out of photography all together, I am just going to try my best to stay away from weddings. Weddings are what inspired me to pick up the camera professionally in the first place- I wanted to be a part of that magic moment in people's lives- give them unforgettable pictures etc... (perhaps I romanticized too much and that was my own downfall) and it just seems like- that doesnt matter anymore. They just want a CD, and you to show up. It really makes me feel, "non creative" more like a robot...

So Im trying to pick myself up and move on to commercial and alternative lifestyles work. I might still do maternity portraiture, but I think babies and weddings are just out. And sadly a large chunk of why is the "competition".

I've seen some of the photos that come out of those shoots- wow....

I agree with you about the buyer responsibility part as well. I am putting a page on my site to warn people... and give them hints on choosing the right photographer etc... I think it will be a good addition. I am being careful not to be malicious... just giving them the facts.

If I hired a cheap photographer, yeah, I'd probably be bossy and picky. I would never expect much as a result, but I might be a little pushy. If I paid a good rate, then I have confidence in the photographer and trust what they're doing. As long as the work they deliver to me is consistent with the portfolio I chose them on, then everything should be okay.

sapearl

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 12:49

Uber picky types ??? Not really sure what you mean by this. In my area there are plenty of regular, hardworking plain folk, very reasonable people, who DO shop the pro's and will happily pay the pro rate for quality work. It also may have something to do with your presentation. If you are strong and confident in way you present a package of quality work, people will still ask questions, but not in what you perceive to be a "picky" way.

I've had cheap picky people as well as really wealthy picky people hire me for covering social events. That's just the luck of the draw when you're dealing with society in general.

Don't lose that first inspiration you got from considering wedding work. You're letting yourself get discouraged too quickly. I mean, how long have you been really plugging away in the business that you feel you've lost so many jobs to $250 disc jockeys? Business is tough now and very competitive. As we once told a young lady who no longer participates here, this whole thing doesn't happen overnight. It is a hard earned and learned craft that takes years to hone; I've been doing it now part time for 3+ decades, and the more I learn, the more I see I have YET to learn. Don't give up.;)

My worry is that the only people left who want to pay a decent rate are going to be the uber picky types and will make it hell- KWIM?

I wont be bowing out of photography all together, I am just going to try my best to stay away from weddings. Weddings are what inspired me to pick up the camera professionally in the first place- I wanted to be a part of that magic moment in people's lives- give them unforgettable pictures etc... (perhaps I romanticized too much and that was my own downfall) and it just seems like- that doesnt matter anymore. They just want a CD, and you to show up. It really makes me feel, "non creative" more like a robot...

......

Karl C

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 13:00

A lesson I learned long ago...

If you undervalue your work, people will undervalue you.

Oh the irony...

JoesLdy

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 13:03

I like that- never thought of it that way!

If I hired a cheap photographer, yeah, I'd probably be bossy and picky. I would never expect much as a result, but I might be a little pushy. If I paid a good rate, then I have confidence in the photographer and trust what they're doing. As long as the work they deliver to me is consistent with the portfolio I chose them on, then everything should be okay.

sapearl

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 13:10

Amanda hit the nail on the head ;). Just as people judge you by how dress, talk and walk, they make similar judgements about the quality of your work based upon your pricing structure.

This is unfortunate to a point, because there are many fine photographers out there who produce fine work, but don't charge in the stratosphere. As I implied before: higher cost = confidence.

If I hired a cheap photographer, yeah, I'd probably be bossy and picky. I would never expect much as a result, but I might be a little pushy. If I paid a good rate, then I have confidence in the photographer and trust what they're doing. .....

JoesLdy

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 13:11

I'm afraid of Bridezilla. Of the woman who screams at me because she paid so much she thinks she can. I like the last perspective on that though- that if you paid more you expect more and ease up.... never even came to my mind. That made me feel quite a bit better!

When I meet with couples, I print out sample photos, with a contract, a nicely laid out list of covered services (which I think is very thorough- I attend rehearsals even) in a vellum folder with my logo printed on the front. I would call it a high end presentation. I bring a portfolio in to show prints, a large one, and of course I have my website.

I've not done enough weddings to make a firm decision, that much I will admit. I've not even gotten past the initial shock of how much work it is (I took it for granted like many newbies do).

I've been at this for about 3 years- but this year is the first Ive had dedicated time to put in to the business (i.e. I quit my day job) and when I did that, I decided to start trying to market myself away from private sector. Weddings were the first on the pecking list for the sheer time and work.

Thats part of my frustration too, I am aware that I don't know what the hell I am doing. I know enough to get by, I know enough to call myself professional- but compared to senior members of the community- I'm novice- and I know it. I also know my place because of this. I don't even know that I am confident to market myself as a full blown wedding photographer yet, which is why I haven't done many weddings. I don't want to do the customer an injustice so I don't do it unless I feel I can (Ive done small weddings so far- budget brides and friends). Personally, I think I need another 2 years at this pace before I would call myself THAT good (as in my day flows, I dont get confused, I remember all the shots etc...). So it really irks me that people go out 2 weeks in to buying an SLR and shoot weddings- its just a bad idea!

I know it wont happen over night. Im still patient :)

I still have the dream of being a pure artist and making money.... so Im trying to go that route LOL Im sure Ill grow out of it when Im eating ramen for dinner!
Uber picky types ??? Not really sure what you mean by this. In my area there are plenty of regular, hardworking plain folk, very reasonable people, who DO shop the pro's and will happily pay the pro rate for quality work. It also may have something to do with your presentation. If you are strong and confident in way you present a package of quality work, people will still ask questions, but not in what you perceive to be a "picky" way.

I've had cheap picky people as well as really wealthy picky people hire me for covering social events. That's just the luck of the draw when you're dealing with society in general.

Don't lose that first inspiration you got from considering wedding work. You're letting yourself get discouraged too quickly. I mean, how long have you been really plugging away in the business that you feel you've lost so many jobs to $250 disc jockeys? Business is tough now and very competitive. As we once told a young lady who no longer participates here, this whole thing doesn't happen overnight. It is a hard earned and learned craft that takes years to hone; I've been doing it now part time for 3+ decades, and the more I learn, the more I see I have YET to learn. Don't give up.;)

JoesLdy

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 13:15

I hate that too- because I don't want to charge a lot. I wish there was some middle ground- it seems like you either have to go high or low or dont fit in anywhere.

I'm getting ready to completely redo my price sheets... and I hem and haw because of that SO SO much. I don't want people to think Im cheap, but I feel morally wrong when I charge some of the rates comparable studios have here in Columbus...

Sap- I'd love to get some advice on that from you if you would like to help out- since you're in Ohio I think you might have a bit more insight in to the local economy than people across the country. I'd love to know how you are doing things. I'm kind of lost (especially with weddings). Ive read the pricing threads here- but I still can't decide how I want to do it (packages, or not, unit pricing maybe or just flat fee etc...).

PM me if interested in helping out- I know that is a whole differnet ball of wax from this discussion! ;)

Amanda hit the nail on the head ;). Just as people judge you by how dress, talk and walk, they make similar judgements about the quality of your work based upon your pricing structure.

This is unfortunate to a point, because there are many fine photographers out there who produce fine work, but don't charge in the stratosphere. As I implied before: higher cost = confidence.

sapearl

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 13:31

Well, I don't have the facilities to do any formal studio work.... don't offer it and don't pretend to. I will tell people that I'll do environmental portraiture (park, yard, etc. fill flash, fine composition, etc.) and I charge accordingly.

If you are producing high quality work, then there is no reason to feel bad about charging a higher rat. But if you don't have comparable studio facilities, then I would not charge like those in Columbus. My only problem is the people who admit they are only "fair-to-midlin' fotogs" and charge you $15,000 for the Wonderful Experience. To me, that is a form of dishonesty... but if people want to pay that much for a good time, then it's their dime and more power to the over priced photographer. I try to deliver maximum value for my rates.

Regarding my specific pricing structure, check out my website. I have a detailed wedding package RATE table. For my area I am just above the middle when compared to what others charge for similar services. My FAQ might give you a little better idea about how to set up some packages.

I've also just started including wedding write-ups in my BLOG (http://www.pearlphoto.blogspot.com/)as a way to generate a little "buzz" to drum up more trade. There are a few shots there from a recent job, as well as links to my site and online proof gallery.

I hate that too- because I don't want to charge a lot. I wish there was some middle ground- it seems like you either have to go high or low or dont fit in anywhere.

I'm getting ready to completely redo my price sheets... and I hem and haw because of that SO SO much. I don't want people to think Im cheap, but I feel morally wrong when I charge some of the rates comparable studios have here in Columbus...

Sap- I'd love to get some advice on that from you if you would like to help out- since you're in Ohio I think you might have a bit more insight in to the local economy than people across the country. I'd love to know how you are doing things. I'm kind of lost (especially with weddings). Ive read the pricing threads here- but I still can't decide how I want to do it (packages, or not, unit pricing maybe or just flat fee etc...).

PM me if interested in helping out- I know that is a whole differnet ball of wax from this discussion! ;)

Vigants

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 13:43

I would not trust my daughter's wedding to a bargain basement photog that was trying to survive on McDonalds wages - not only because I'd be skeptical of their skill level but also because it would be a fair assumption that they did not own the necessary equipment (and spares) to guarantee a non-disaster.

But that does not mean I should need to take out a second mortgage to pay for a photog that considers themselves to be "an artiste" and walk around with their nose in the air. This is not brain surgery and I do not think that I need to pay those rates to get good results.

There will always be people with more money than sense who will create a market for over-priced service providers (not just photographers). That does not mean that they get better results. They just pay more. And I have no problem with that - rich people seldom submit themselves to any form of voluntary taxation, so every dollar they dump back into the economy can only help. And if that money goes to a photog, who then feels richer and buys more toys so that Canon (or Nikon) get more revenue and can therefor develop new products - I am all for it.

But what is fair? I see numbers all over the map - from $400 to $10,000+ to shoot a wedding. I'd like to take a shot at a 'fair estimate' - please do not bother to jump all over the numbers - I am just trying to get a ballpark figure.

Personally, I think that a properly equipped wedding photog probably has in the neighborhood of $20K worth of equipment and I feel that it should last (on average) about 4 years. Assuming, say, 40 - 50 shoots a year, their equipment cost per shoot should be only $100 - $125. Adding 50% margin that is around $150 - $200. So equipment cost is not 'nothing', but does not justify exorbitant rates.

Assuming that the preplanning, shoot and processing takes 3 days between them it merely remains to figure a fair day rate. In my work I quote rates for skilled, degree'd engineers regularly and they command anywhere from $85 - $160 per hour; probably the average is a little under $1000/day. That is not all $ to the engineer him/herself but to the company that employs the engineer. Still, a photographer that is self-employed 'is' the company, so that is probably a relevant comparison.

So is an engineer worth more/less than a photographer? Depends on the individuals being compared, but I'd say that a skilled photog with some artistic ability should be in a similar range. What this tells me is that I should be able to hire a photog to do a wedding for $2000- $3000 and expect professional results and no surprises. If I can find someone who is still building up their business I might get a good result under $2K. Less than $1K and I'd want rock solid references - the little hairs on my neck would be standing up, probably for good reason.

At the other end of the spectrum, the photogs that think they are worth $10K+ probably are . . . but only because they must be great salesmen. Personally I think you'd need to be nuts to pay that kind of money.

sapearl

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 14:17

I think these are very good numbers vigants. That pretty much falls in my range for full service/all day album packages. I do have some lesser rates, but these are for only a couple of hours of service, there are no disks involved, and finished (enlargement) product is considerably less.

....... but I'd say that a skilled photog with some artistic ability should be in a similar range. What this tells me is that I should be able to hire a photog to do a wedding for $2000- $3000 and expect professional results and no surprises. If I can find someone who is still building up their business I might get a good result under $2K. Less than $1K and I'd want rock solid references - the little hairs on my neck would be standing up, probably for good reason.......

notapro

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 14:38

Thats part of my frustration too, I am aware that I don't know what the hell I am doing. I know enough to get by, I know enough to call myself professional- but compared to senior members of the community- I'm novice- and I know it. I also know my place because of this. I don't even know that I am confident to market myself as a full blown wedding photographer yet, which is why I haven't done many weddings. I don't want to do the customer an injustice so I don't do it unless I feel I can (Ive done small weddings so far- budget brides and friends). Personally, I think I need another 2 years at this pace before I would call myself THAT good (as in my day flows, I dont get confused, I remember all the shots etc...). So it really irks me that people go out 2 weeks in to buying an SLR and shoot weddings- its just a bad idea!

I'm still working a day job, but I get what you mean here. I shared the responsibility of doing one wedding with someone else for a friend who would otherwise have not had a photographer (I didn't get paid at all). Aside from that special circumstance, I would never do somebody's wedding. I could probably start offering to shoot and burn for $500 (pretty good pay for a day) but I don't want my name floating around until I have really solid work attached to it. If somebody asked me to shoot their wedding, I'd recommend a good photographer and ask if my finder's fee can be 2nd shooting. :D

sfaust

27th of October 2007 (Sat), 11:23

What this tells me is that I should be able to hire a photog to do a wedding for $2000- $3000 and expect professional results and no surprises.

Those are pretty reasonable numbers. I would have suggested more along the lines of $2,500 to $5,500, which allows for more services and products on the higher end, hiring more experienced second shooters for better coverage and more creative results, increased post production work, complex album layouts, etc. But yea, $2K to $3K should buy a couple a pretty nice package from an experienced pro.

Like you, anything over the $5,500 mark would make me wonder what I'm paying the extra money for. That's not to say that a $20K wedding is overpriced or unfair either. $20K for having the top wedding photographer in the country shoot your wedding is worth every penny they pay for it, and probably a bargain as well. It really depends on the clients pocketbook and expectations. The deeper the clients pockets, the less expensive a $15K wedding package seems.

Croasdail

27th of October 2007 (Sat), 11:37

A lesson I learned long ago...

If you undervalue your work, people will undervalue you.

Thunk! (sound of jaw dropping to the floor....)

Wow, never thought I would see this! Good on ya!

I am probably one of the worlds worst artist - but I would still prefer to view photography as an art rather then a business. To me, "business photography" is those stupid little place in the mall that take your pictures for nothing, and look like they are worth nothing. I hate to see it drawn down into petty dollars and cents. I like to feel that the work will find it's own intrinsic value... what ever that is. So many post "what do I charge for x".. my answer is what ever the client will pay... no more.. no less.

daclozer

27th of October 2007 (Sat), 23:15

The BMW/Hyundai example isn't that good, as there are several very obvious differences between the 2 cars, and even more if you drive both and compare. But for someone who doesn't do this (and therefore does not understand the real differences between PnS mom's and a pro's pictures), they see 2 pictures, both "look" good, and one is cheap. Will they notice the DOF, or the pic-sharp focus, or recognize the precise timing of the shot, the framing, etc... ? Probably not.
Just carry on with what you are doing, but maybe take some time to start educating the parents. Show them why your pictures are worth it. Show them the differences between a PnS shot and your's.

I have to disagree and I think that it is a perfect example. Yes there are lots of differences, but that is what makes the BMW cost more... It is better and the people that buy BMW's are happy to pay for a better product. The people on craigslist, half of them are scammers anyway, are not worth wasting time with anyway..

Kadath

28th of October 2007 (Sun), 00:15

I love these conversations, mostly because I disagree with the most popular sentiments, but I have the luxury of being an amateur and not someone whose livelyhood depends on it...

I do have one request tho...

would you people PLEASE stop bottom quoting? I thought we fixed that debate 30 years ago =)

sfaust

28th of October 2007 (Sun), 15:05

It appears you were in error when you thought that debate was over :)

would you people PLEASE stop bottom quoting? I thought we fixed that debate 30 years ago =)

JoesLdy

28th of October 2007 (Sun), 17:27

Are you talking about the quotes on the boards or prices? LOL!

Hey I wanted to let you guys know I thought of you yesterday when I was at that wedding feeling like I a complete FAILURE telling myself to "not give up too soon" ;)

I still think Im going to give up... ugh.

By the way- I did this wedding pro bono to build a portfolio... and she didn't even tip me. I was kind of- appalled!

I did decide however, I will never do a wedding for less than 1k. Ever-ever-ever again.

I loved the equation with equipment above- makes a lot of sense! I figure the wear and tear on my body alone is worth something. My kneecaps feel like theyre going to blow apart any minute- and my shoulder is killing me from hauling 30 lbs of equipment around my neck all day. I think that in itself deserves a large paycheck- this is hard work no matter WHAT. Novice or no- you are still on your feet all day busting your ass (or I would hope any photog at a wedding would be) that why I dont get people around here who charge 250 a pop. I cannot even fathom doing this to my body for that much- I worked basically a 12 hour day- you do the math.

Oh well- *shrug* its hard work and you get what you pay for is the bottom line I suppose!

It appears you were in error when you thought that debate was over :)

Croasdail

28th of October 2007 (Sun), 21:59

and shooting the event was just the easy part. There is a lot of post work to get great looking prints. I don't get people who give it away either.

woffles

6th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:56

Just something to take into account here for some of you that feel that charging more then a couple of thousand for a wedding is too much. Figure out what all of this will cost you for a year, add into it normal living expenses, retirement, vacations and whatever else I've left off and divide that by how many weddings you might do in a year comfortably and still have a life and see what doing business really costs. Don't forget to add what you'd actually like to make above all this after it's all paid. This is what a lot of beginners don't take into account when they jump into a business like this.

I'm still learning all this myself and for just a basic wedding with a DVD delivered it still comes out to a little over $2000. That's with nothing included. It can be a real eye opener to do the math. Feel free to add to anything I've forgotten. This is just off the top of my head.

Liability insurance
Indemnity insurance
Health Insurance
LIfe Insurance
Equipment Insurance
Equipment costs (repair, replace, rent) lifetime about 3 years if your lucky
Travel costs (gas, car maintenance, car insurance)
Computer equipment costs (software, hardware, ISPs, websites, etc)
Studio costs (in home or separate) (rent, Mortgage)
Taxes (accountant, software)
Advertising
Credit card processing fees if you do these
Lawyer fees
Collection fees on bad accounts
Travel time to and from shoot
Time spent shooting
Time spent processing files
Lab fees
Album Fees
Time spent designing original albums
Seminars
Classes
Workshops
Organization fees (DWF, PPA, Local Chamber, etc)
Time spent on phone
Time spent with clients
Time spent meeting with other vendors and networking

kona77

7th of November 2007 (Wed), 11:30

Let's not forget about when weddings are usually held, weekends. So you have 52 weekends a year to make a living, not the standard 5 days a week.

You can't turn back or slow down the clock but you can increase prices to compensate.

JoesLdy

7th of November 2007 (Wed), 15:05

Very good points. After doing the wedding last week and a 6 hour event 4 days later, I have really started to appreciate how much work it really is. I am a chronic pain and fatigue sufferer so just the act of standing up for that many hours has a huge toll for me. First Im worn out for days, then I get backed up on editing etc...

I have a lot to learn yet, but I think the end images still look very good. I got an email from a local gallery that really boosted my ego last night. Even if I am learning, and I have to do a lot of behind the scenes hard work (i.e. fixing my errors with photoshop etc...) I am still delivering a product that is unique and in demand.

Then to think of the details of how much it costs hard cash wise like that boggles the mind. I'm losing my ass on everything, I am going to be sitting down and completely overhauling my pricing over the next week or so- then I am advertising like mad and crossing my fingers.

sfaust

7th of November 2007 (Wed), 21:16

Now if every bride and groom did a wedding themselves before hiring their photographer, I'd bet the rates would be higher :)

I can't help but laugh every time I hear the, "How hard can it be..." line. Yea, it is, and demmanding, and time consuming, and ....

Vigants

7th of November 2007 (Wed), 23:49

Seems to be more than a few 'pros' here that cry about amateurs taking food out of their mouths, but I submit that when there really is a huge difference in ability, talent and deliverables that it sorts itself out.

A 'professional' should be competent to a degree that he/she is able to manage the people, the shooting and the post processing work flow far, far more efficiently than an amateur.

So my answer to the question, "How hard can it be?" is "Not too hard, if you really are a competent professional."

However, if your product is hard to distinguish from an amateur's and it takes you just as long to do it as an amateur - then you just might be an AMATEUR! ;)

klynam

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 10:38

Vigants

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 13:42

OP here...

Not crying about it really, maybe a little I guess. Mainly just observing. My thoughts...

Most people in the world want to believe they can get something for nothing. Deep down inside, they know they can't, but they're willing to take a chance they'll at least get lucky. Low-ballers perpetuate this "lottery" mentality and keep the conversation away from where it should be.

Some people legitimately can't afford a quality shooter. For them, any option is a good option. Most of the rest think they're getting a "deal" with a lo-baller. This combined with (relatively) low cost equipment and instant websites, makes it hard for people to think critically about what they are choosing and why. It's just to easy to think, "ahh, they all look the same, pick one and let's move on..."

If 2 people buy identical cars, and one pays full MSRP and the other negotiates a better deal, that doesn't make the one paying less a "low baller". It means the other was a bit of an idiot . . .

And yes, it is "easy to think, "ahh, they all look the same"" if there are not clear differences. Again - an excellent portfolio and references should differentiate the real pro from the wanna-be.

I stand by my premise that really good photographers that work efficiently are likely making a good living. Photographer's that are struggling are doing so for a reason - and I do not believe that Craigslist-type competition or low-baller customers are the true reason . . .

notapro

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 15:01

However, if your product is hard to distinguish from an amateur's and it takes you just as long to do it as an amateur - then you just might be an AMATEUR! ;)

Well said!

klynam

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 15:35

I stand by my premise that really good photographers that work efficiently are likely making a good living. Photographer's that are struggling are doing so for a reason - and I do not believe that Craigslist-type competition or low-baller customers are the true reason . . .

True reason? Of course not. Contributing factor, I believe wholeheartedly yes!

Personally, I'm not worried about loosing money because shooting isn't my full time gig. I'm just describing the WalMart effect - mass availability of cheap imitations dragging down the market sector as a whole - working it's way into our little part of the economy.

n1as

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 16:35

So here's the question. I'm an amateur who shoots sports for fun. My stuff is good (not great) and parents want it. I give it to the school to support year book. If I put my pics on SmugMug and sell prints to parents for $1 each, I'm doing them a great favor but am possibly undermining the work of a local pro who comes shoots the same games I do.

So what options do I have. Should I quit shooting to ensure the pro has a protected territory? Should I raise my price to the same level as the pro so I'm not underselling him? Should I only sell pics of the games I'm at where there is no pro doing freelance work?

My day job gives me an unfair advantage that I don't have to make a dime. If I do generate some income, I can just dump it back into more toys. The pro is trying to pay a mortgage, I'm trying to get another L lens.

It really is a dilemma, one that I'm facing today. Let me know what you think.

- Keith -

notapro

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 16:45

Vigants

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 18:24

I'm normally of the attitude that we're the ones who wanted capitalism so suck it up, but the pro may well have a contract with the association that stipulates he's the only professional allowed to take the photos and sell them. Whatever you consider yourself, once you start selling, you are a 'professional' and I'm sure the association will ask you to stop bringing your camera.

They might ask, but they may not be within their rights. If the person's own kid is playing they certainly cannot stop him from shooting the game. In fact, if they are playing on fields that are public, they really cannot stop anyone from shooting, whether their kid is playing or not.

I had a variation of this discussion a few years ago with a laywer friend. My concern was whether I could get in trouble by posting pictures of other people's kids on the web. Answer was that once a person steps foot in public they are poretty much fair game . . .

The legalities aside, one thing you might consider is approaching the pro and seeing if he would sell your pictures from his site - at his rates - and pay you a buck a picture or some percentage of the reveunue your shots generate. Then he could skip games that you were shooting to shoot someone/something else.

Benefit to the pro - potentially more volume.

Benefit to amateur - the pro would have a good reason to mentor you just to improve/maintain the quality of what is being sold using his name.

I do the same thing (soccer pics/SmugMug/sell 'em for a buck) but I let the proceeds go to the team as a fund-raiser. Frankly, I'd love to work with/for a pro instead just to have someone more skilled to learn from.

notapro

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 23:28

They might ask, but they may not be within their rights. If the person's own kid is playing they certainly cannot stop him from shooting the game. In fact, if they are playing on fields that are public, they really cannot stop anyone from shooting, whether their kid is playing or not.

Blame it on the Canadian in me... I assumed he was talking about hockey, which would be an arena where they could refuse to admit him with a camera. My apologies.

Vigants

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 23:48

Blame it on the Canadian in me... I assumed he was talking about hockey, which would be an arena where they could refuse to admit him with a camera. My apologies.

Damn Canadians! :lol: I'd think you could hide several camera bodies and a half dozen lenses under one of those winter coats, eh? Or at least a P&S under a tuque?

Interesting that the Canadian $ is worth more now but everything still costs more dollars in Canada (plus 14% tax). If you feel like you are getting ripped off . . . you just might be in Canada.

notapro

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 00:21

Damn Canadians! :lol: I'd think you could hide several camera bodies and a half dozen lenses under one of those winter coats, eh? Or at least a P&S under a tuque?

Interesting that the Canadian $ is worth more now but everything still costs more dollars in Canada (plus 14% tax). If you feel like you are getting ripped off . . . you just might be in Canada.

LOL! No kidding... apparently some of the big chains are starting to bring their prices down, but I doubt it will be in time to stop people from doing their Christmas shopping across the border. I know I plan to. And camera equipment is ridiculously cheaper in the US. But I digress.....

henleg

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 00:36

I'm at the "lesson learnt," end of the stick.

We got an acquaintance of ours to do our photos for our wedding (April 1st, 2000; yup, yup, April Fools Day). They charged us AU$500 for our photos. From memory, they charged about $700-$800 normally. This was also before the digital revolution.

When we got our photos back, barely any of them were in focus. They weren't terrible, but not by any means sharp. They had 2 people with cameras. We had to pretend to cut the cake so they could leave, the only capture of "the kiss," was zoomed right out from the end of the aisle.

We're renewing our vows in 2010, to celebrate, so by heck I'm not getting stung twice!

I was reluctant, but also on a very tight budget, so was kinda at loggerheads.

My best friend got married a few years later and were shopping around. Luckily, they asked my opinion, and I said, "If you can afford the best, get them!" So they could & they did. Guess what? They have the best wedding album in Melbourne!

Anyway, that's my gripe...

Hen.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/52.gif

New Hobby

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 08:25

sfaust

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 09:57

Some friends of mine are getting married in a few months. I was talking with the bride and she told me she was very excited to get the photograper she wanted. From what I understand this photographer has shot in the place where the wedding is taking place and has a large body of work. They are also meeting with the photographer to discuss the types of shots they would like a few weeks before the wedding. The total is about $6,000 US. You get what you pay for.

Ask them if a "$500 with all images on CD" and saving $5,500 on their wedding photography was ever on the table as an option. That will give us an idea on how much of a threat the 'low ballers' really are. My guess, they were never even given a second thought, even with a $5,500 savings!

New Hobby

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 10:04

Vigants

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 11:31

LOL! No kidding... apparently some of the big chains are starting to bring their prices down, but I doubt it will be in time to stop people from doing their Christmas shopping across the border. I know I plan to. And camera equipment is ridiculously cheaper in the US. But I digress.....

I have just always been bothered by things like books, premarked with a different set of prices like $5.99 US and $8.99 Canada.

notapro

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 12:49

I have just always been bothered by things like books, premarked with a different set of prices like $5.99 US and $8.99 Canada.

Books are supposed to be one thing that's coming down. That in particular really irks me too. Even before the dollars were where they are, I thought that it was excessive. I'm sure it will take them months to make a change and the second our dollar dips below US again, they'll change everything back. We're so used to everything costing more we've become complacent I think.

(But I still love Canada!)

klynam

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 18:34

...the pro may well have a contract with the association that stipulates he's the only professional allowed to take the photos and sell them. Whatever you consider yourself, once you start selling, you are a 'professional' and I'm sure the association will ask you to stop bringing your camera.

Personally, if I encountered this situation I would not photograph anyone except my own son out of professional respect for the person who secured the contract. In fact, I'll go further than that: Last year, another father on my sons football team worked for a sport shooter group. He had better equipment and more experience than me and he sold shots of our team online, albeit cheaper than his standard prices. Even though there was no 'contract' to dispute, I mainly took shots of my son and didn't attempt to sell against him. I basically differed to him, again out of professional respect.

Just my "do unto others..." philosophy I guess...

notapro

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 19:05

Vigants

9th of November 2007 (Fri), 21:44

Personally, if I encountered this situation I would not photograph anyone except my own son out of professional respect for the person who secured the contract. In fact, I'll go further than that: Last year, another father on my sons football team worked for a sport shooter group. He had better equipment and more experience than me and he sold shots of our team online, albeit cheaper than his standard prices. Even though there was no 'contract' to dispute, I mainly took shots of my son and didn't attempt to sell against him. I basically differed to him, again out of professional respect.

Just my "do unto others..." philosophy I guess...

Only problem with that philosophy is that the second camera trained on the play might have been the one to get the absolute killer shot - and now it is lost forever just so that the pro would not lose a few dollars to pictures you shot. I don't see any reason that you should have to self-censor in this situation. This is just my same argument from earlier - if the guy is really good and has better equipment I see no reason that he should be intimidated by you shooting the game. And if your work rivals his then either you are pretty darn good, or he needs to find a new job.

The other approach that you might consider, since revenue does not seem to be a motivating factor, would be to shoot the game the best you can and offer your shots to the pro in exchange for him reviewing & critiquing them. Might learn something interesting. I'd shoot the game (not just my kid) specifically so that I could compare my results to his and then (assuming mine were not as good), try and use that to figure out what I don't know.

klynam

12th of November 2007 (Mon), 09:49

Only problem with that philosophy is that the second camera trained on the play might have been the one to get the absolute killer shot - and now it is lost forever

Well, my son was the lead running back, part time quarterback, and corner back on D. So I was usually shooting the action anyway...;)

The other approach that you might consider, since revenue does not seem to be a motivating factor, would be to shoot the game the best you can and offer your shots to the pro in exchange for him reviewing & critiquing them. Might learn something interesting. I'd shoot the game (not just my kid) specifically so that I could compare my results to his and then (assuming mine were not as good), try and use that to figure out what I don't know.

Excellent advice, and more or less what I did; albeit just on the sidelines chimping together...

transcend

12th of November 2007 (Mon), 12:09

Ask them if a "$500 with all images on CD" and saving $5,500 on their wedding photography was ever on the table as an option. That will give us an idea on how much of a threat the 'low ballers' really are. My guess, they were never even given a second thought, even with a $5,500 savings!

Let's be brutally honest here, not many people are even are of the difference in quality. Many simply think a photo is a photo, why do I have to pay $5000? Those guys are a ripoff.

After they see their results however, they are perfectly aware of the difference...

Vigants

12th of November 2007 (Mon), 21:37

Well, my son was the lead running back, part time quarterback, and corner back on D. So I was usually shooting the action anyway...;) Excellent advice, and more or less what I did; albeit just on the sidelines chimping together...

I am curious - who's shots were better? ;)

bwolford

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 15:10

cosworth

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 16:28

I shot my own wedding. I got what I paid for and wasn't disappointed.

Vigants

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 20:45

Some harsh language, but if you substitute the word "photographer" for the word "writer" in this video it still applies.

Pay the Writer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE)

I think it makes the point quite nicely.

I disagree. I think he comes off as a whining prima donna. If the writing of amateurs were of insufficient quality for the studios' purposes they would not use it and would have to pay this guy his rates. And if he is not substantially better at writing than those who are willing to give it away, then he is an idiot for staying in the trade (unless he doesn't need the money and writes for the love of it - which is a completely valid motivation for doing anything). Pretty arrogant of him to question the value others put on their own work, anyway.

The studio was not willing to pay him anything for his interview because it had no real value. Using the logic he applied to the DVD having no marketing value for him, the studio could rightly point out that sales of the DVD would be unaffected by whether his interview was included or not.

bwolford

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 22:43

I disagree. I think he comes off as a whining prima donna. If the writing of amateurs were of insufficient quality for the studios' purposes they would not use it and would have to pay this guy his rates. And if he is not substantially better at writing than those who are willing to give it away, then he is an idiot for staying in the trade (unless he doesn't need the money and writes for the love of it - which is a completely valid motivation for doing anything). Pretty arrogant of him to question the value others put on their own work, anyway.

The studio was not willing to pay him anything for his interview because it had no real value. Using the logic he applied to the DVD having no marketing value for him, the studio could rightly point out that sales of the DVD would be unaffected by whether his interview was included or not.

Twisted logic, but all opinions count. Thanks for yours.

johnwmiller

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 22:54

Nicely put.

Binning

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 23:12

Some harsh language, but if you substitute the word "photographer" for the word "writer" in this video it still applies.

Pay the Writer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE)

I think it makes the point quite nicely.

While the guy has such a hard edge that he doesn't come off as particularly sympathetic, the basic point is a good one. In this case, DVD's are big money, and they're asking to use him in a bonus section. They wouldn't want to use his interview if it had no value. But they don't want to compensate him? Business is business. He has a good point, though it is annoyingly conveyed. You make a valid point Bwolford.

sapearl

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 23:27

I finally took the time to look at that Harlan Ellison clip on YouTube - actually I thought he was quite entertaining in it..... and VERY right. Sure he has a hard edge about - he's pi$$ed off about people giving it away.

You're right, it is conveyed a little annoyingly, but I actually found that part pretty funny. That's the only way to get across to some people ;). I donate time and talent to my local PBS station, but all others pay the going rate.

While the guy has such a hard edge that he doesn't come off as particularly sympathetic, the basic point is a good one. In this case, DVD's are big money, and they're asking to use him in a bonus section. They wouldn't want to use his interview if it had no value. But they don't want to compensate him? Business is business. He has a good point, though it is annoyingly conveyed. You make a valid point Bwolford.

sapearl

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 10:14

Here's a little ancecdotal, non-scientfic statistic from my local pro camera repair shop regarding the wedding trade. I asked my friend behind the counter how he felt the wedding trade was going, based on comments of the pro shooters who bring their gear in for service.

"Business sucks," was his response to my query. He felt based on their comments, that wedding/social event business for the longtime pros was down by 50 - 75%.

He attributed this to the sub $1k shooters who do several hundred shots at a wedding with little or no PP, don't provide anything in the way of albums, prints or additional services, but simply hand a disk to the client as the "finished" product.

I can't confirm or deny any of this, but he's in a better position to see this sort of thing than I can based on his contacts. I live in the Midwest, Cleveland specifically. Certainly I am getting fewer calls in the past 12 months - this could be the result of the "pre-screening" that my website & galleries are doing which went up last December - or maybe it's because I'm charging in the $1,600 - $3K+ range and folks feel that's too high.

He also attributed part of the drop off to "Uncle Joe" with his copy of photoshop. It would be interesting to see if this anecdotal statisic matched up with other areas of the country - or maybe Cleveland brides are just in worse financial shape than those in other cities.

Vigants

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 10:23

He felt based on their comments, that wedding/social event business for the longtime pros was down by 50 - 75%. . . . . It would be interesting to see if this anecdotal statisic matched up with other areas of the country - or maybe Cleveland brides are just in worse financial shape than those in other cities.

Could also be that the economy is starting to tank. I imagine that a few years ago when home prices were shooting up there was a wealth effect that had lots of Dads refinancing their houses (or taking lines of credit) to do lavish weddings and maybe now that is past.

Probably would need to correlate data from wedding planners with data from photographers to see if it is an overall issue or just pictures. Maybe the videographers' business is way up and that is cannibalizing still shooters?

bwolford

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 10:40

Or that the market is changing and the standard is lowering.

New Hobby

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 10:44

The economy could have something to do with it. Weddings are not cheap things.

I talked with one of my female friends and she hated the pro shots she got from her wedding. I did not ask how much she paid for them but I know the wedding was done on a budget. She asked the photographer to take behind the scenes (there is a better word) type shots not the normal posed types. My gut says thoses can be harder shots but I have never shot a wedding. She liked the ones her friends did (with P&S) much better. In a nutshell, she got what she paid for.

Vigants

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 10:45

Or that the market is changing and the standard is lowering.

Very possible - if the overall wedding services market is strong and wedding photography is not, then a change is happening. My point was simply that one needs to look at the wedding photography market in the context of the whole wedding industry.

n1as

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 11:22

I have some guesses.

I think demand for pro wedding photographs is on the decline. Digital has made home-made photography easier than ever. In the film days you needed a darkroom. Now you only need a PC.

I think a lot of people can't tell a good photo from a bad one. They don't see the difference between Uncle Joe's P&S pics and the pro's pics so they're not willing to pay the price. I'm not even sure they want a photo album any more, maybe preferring a CD / DVD with their images so they can display them on anything and share them with friends & family over the 'net.

Add to that the number of hobbyists with a good camera and Photoshop (i.e. me) willling to give stuff away just for fun and you can see how the pros could be having problems.

Consumers (brides) have choices they didn't have before and it may be that they are willing to take reduced quality to get a reduced price.

Just some thoughts. I may be way off base.

- Keith -

New Hobby

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 11:35

Add to that the number of hobbyists with a good camera and Photoshop (i.e. me) willling to give stuff away just for fun and you can see how the pros could be having problems.

I think just one Bridezilla and giving it away just for fun would end quickly.

I had one girlfriends ask if I would be their photographer for their 2nd wedding. I told them I would take some shots but I would not be their photographer. Way too much pressure.

notapro

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 11:57

I think the change in the market is obvious, but instead of coming down on the amateurs and semi-pros (what good does it do? and you'll have hard time getting rid of all your competition), I think people need to look at the market differently.

Once upon a time, if you wanted even halfway decent photos of your wedding, you had to hire a pro. Maybe you were lucky and someone you knew owned and regularly used a semi-good camera, but probably not.

That simply isn't true anymore. So instead of thinking that the full-time pros are rightfully entitled to shoot each and every wedding that takes place, why not adapt your thinking? Recognize that the market is now segmented differently. There are people who will ask a friend due to budget or priorities. There are people who will go with the low-baller, due to budget or priorities. Then there are those people who will choose to hire an experienced and accomplished wedding photographer, due to budget and priorities. They may be looking to pay $2K or $15K. Instead of worrying about missing out on all the couples whose budgets and priorities don't fit with your sevices, why not suck it up, move on, and focus on targetting that group of brides and grooms who are actually in your market. Make sure that you're reaching them with your marketting and that your skill level is where it should be to justify them hiring you.

The problem with trying so hard to stand still is that you'll mistake the current flowing past you for progress. You're never going to get back up-stream, so flow with it.