Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 29 Mar 2015 (Sunday) 19:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Conversation overheard during photography Meetup

 
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,754 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 409
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by RDKirk.
     
Mar 31, 2015 07:31 |  #46

moose10101 wrote in post #17499073 (external link)
Arrogant and ignorant at the same time; kudos to you.

No, kit lenses aren't L glass, but one of the reasons for their price is the fact that lots of them are made, reducing the unit cost. You remember Econ 101, right? If you can't produce a good photo with Rebel/kit glass, your creds as a "professional" are in doubt.

The reason they're cheaper is less expensive structural design (e.g., single zoom and focusing helicoils instead of double helicoils), les expensive materials (e.g., more plastic instead of metal or aluminum instead of brass), and simpler optical design (e.g., variable maximum aperture or smaller maximum aperture).

That might reduce versatility, maintainability, and robustness (all factors valuable to a professional), but as I've said before, at the middle f-stops where family portrait photographers live they're just as good. In a family portrait taken on a nice afternoon at f/8, there is no L lens that is an optically superior choice to the Canon 50mm f/1.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
moose10101
registered smartass
1,579 posts
Likes: 90
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by moose10101.
     
Mar 31, 2015 08:11 |  #47

RDKirk wrote in post #17499110 (external link)
The reason they're cheaper is less expensive structural design (e.g., single zoom and focusing helicoils instead of double helicoils), les expensive materials (e.g., more plastic instead of metal or aluminum instead of brass), and simpler optical design (e.g., variable maximum aperture or smaller maximum aperture).

Yes, that is also ONE of the reasons (probably the main reason), but not the only reason. I did not claim that "economies of scale" was the only factor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
Avatar
974 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
Post edited over 3 years ago by benji25.
     
Mar 31, 2015 09:09 |  #48

moose10101 wrote in post #17499073 (external link)
Arrogant and ignorant at the same time; kudos to you.

No, kit lenses aren't L glass, but one of the reasons for their price is the fact that lots of them are made, reducing the unit cost. You remember Econ 101, right? If you can't produce a good photo with Rebel/kit glass, your creds as a "professional" are in doubt.

God knows what you'd think of the 50-year old lenses I used on my Rebel to produce photos that people bought to display in their homes.

You actually are required to charge them 1965 dollars because that is the real value of your work - when you bought your gear.

Have fun selling a print for 65 cents.

RDKirk wrote in post #17499110 (external link)
That might reduce versatility, maintainability, and robustness (all factors valuable to a professional),

None of which effect image quality. Versatility maybe but usually that just makes an image easier, not better.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,579 posts
Likes: 90
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 31, 2015 10:46 |  #49

benji25 wrote in post #17499202 (external link)
You actually are required to charge them 1965 dollars because that is the real value of your work - when you bought your gear.

Have fun selling a print for 65 cents.

Actually, I bought them all in the past few years, for a fraction of their 1960's price. List price on my Micro-Nikkor was $179 back in 1963. I paid $40 in 2012. Great lens. So I guess I have to charge 19 cents per print.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,754 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 409
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 31, 2015 10:49 |  #50

moose10101 wrote in post #17499288 (external link)
Actually, I bought them all in the past few years, for a fraction of their 1960's price. List price on my Micro-Nikkor was $179 back in 1963. I paid $40 in 2012. Great lens. So I guess I have to charge 19 cents per print.

That never works for me. The old 60s and 70s equipment I want to buy always costs at least as much now used as it cost then new.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,472 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 586
Joined Dec 2010
     
Mar 31, 2015 11:38 |  #51

dkizzle wrote in post #17498419 (external link)
I went to B&H & looked up what a Rebel body & kit lens costs and a t5 with 18-55mm is $399. This is the top of the line Rebel and used can probably be had for $300. It is very possible that he had an earlier model t4 or t3 which is worth even less. When the job costs more than equipment used you cannot expect miracles.

Just to argue and nitpick about equipment, since that's apparently what we're here for:

The T5 that you're seeing for $399 is not the same as the T5i. The T5 is arguably at the very bottom end of the Rebel line, with only the most basic of functions and a 4:3 sensor.

Even if you did intend to say the T5i (not the T5), it's not the "top of the line Rebel" any more either; it has been superseded by the T6i.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
Avatar
974 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Mar 31, 2015 12:06 |  #52

dkizzle wrote in post #17498419 (external link)
When the job costs more than equipment used you cannot expect miracles.

If the job isn't paying more than what you pay for equipment you will be out of business before you even get in to business.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Mar 2012
Post edited over 3 years ago by dkizzle.
     
Mar 31, 2015 12:38 |  #53

nathancarter wrote in post #17499341 (external link)
Just to argue and nitpick about equipment, since that's apparently what we're here for:

The T5 that you're seeing for $399 is not the same as the T5i. The T5 is arguably at the very bottom end of the Rebel line, with only the most basic of functions and a 4:3 sensor.

Even if you did intend to say the T5i (not the T5), it's not the "top of the line Rebel" any more either; it has been superseded by the T6i.

I apologize I went to B&H and what I posted was the first Rebel that popped up after bigger models. Nevertheless I was trying to imply that his body was older and had overall lower value than the cost of the job.

benji25 wrote in post #17499379 (external link)
If the job isn't paying more than what you pay for equipment you will be out of business before you even get in to business.

So if I use 5dm3 + 70-200mm 2.8L IS II to take portraits I should charge few thousand dollars for each job? Thanks for the advice, when I get asked to shoot a wedding again I will offer them a great deal and ask them to buy me a full wedding kit and do the wedding in exchange for equipment. This will be cheaper than me charging them more than the equipment is worth.


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,472 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 586
Joined Dec 2010
     
Mar 31, 2015 13:05 |  #54

Those are the worst portraits I've ever seen.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
travisvwright
Goldmember
Avatar
2,040 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 209
Joined Feb 2013
Location: NC
Post edited over 3 years ago by travisvwright. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 31, 2015 13:10 as a reply to  @ dkizzle's post |  #55

Wow total jerk move (and I'm pretty sure against POTN rules). Also with some very minor PP I could make that second one a really good image.


I come here for your expert opinion. Please do not hesitate to critique or edit.
70D, T3i, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 10-18 4.5 STM

Franklin NC Photographer Travis Wright (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Qlayer2
OOOHHH! Pretty Moth!
Avatar
941 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 119
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Mar 31, 2015 13:10 as a reply to  @ dkizzle's post |  #56

You can't post images that aren't yours- you probably want to remove those.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BlakeC
"Dad was a meat cutter"
Avatar
2,673 posts
Gallery: 372 photos
Likes: 668
Joined Jul 2014
Location: West Michigan, USA
     
Mar 31, 2015 13:13 |  #57

travisvwright wrote in post #17499440 (external link)
Wow total jerk move (and I'm pretty sure against POTN rules). Also with some very minor PP I could make that second one a really good image.

Yup! I was thinking the same thing with the second one!


Blake C
BlakeC-Photography.com (external link)
Follow Me on Facebook (external link) , Instagram (external link), or Google+ (external link)
80D |70D | SL1 - Σ 18-35 1.8 ART, Σ 50-100 1.8 ART, Σ 17-50 2.8, Canon 24 2.8 Pancake, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 10-18 STM, Canon 18-135 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
Avatar
974 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
Post edited over 3 years ago by benji25.
     
Mar 31, 2015 13:17 |  #58

dkizzle wrote in post #17499415 (external link)
So if I use 5dm3 + 70-200mm 2.8L IS II to take portraits I should charge few thousand dollars for each job? Thanks for the advice, when I get asked to shoot a wedding again I will offer them a great deal and ask them to buy me a full wedding kit and do the wedding in exchange for equipment. This will be cheaper than me charging them more than the equipment is worth.

Here are few pictures photographer took at this Meetup.

Then what do you mean if the job costs more than the equipment you cannot expect miracles? And many wedding photographers charge much more than what a 5D3 and 70-200 cost.

This just goes to show that you should not charge based on what you pay for your gear (aside from each client's appropriation of the cost of maintenance/replacemen​t).

You are taking one inexperienced photographer and saying that the equipment they use is not capable of producing professional results. That is blatantly false. Set up two canvases. Both have the same easel, canvas, paint and brushes. Put me in front of one and Picasso in front of the other. We both paid maybe $5 for the brush and $5 for the paint.

Should we both charge $20? I mean, we paid the same for the gear.

Assume I paid $1,000 for my brush and paint. Should I charge more than Picasso? Van Gough?

Sure there are people who have a $5 brush and suck at painting. But A master with the some brush could do Starry Night.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,754 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 409
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 31, 2015 13:28 |  #59

benji25 wrote in post #17499449 (external link)
Then what do you mean if the job costs more than the equipment you cannot expect miracles? And many wedding photographers charge much more than what a 5D3 and 70-200 cost.

This just goes to show that you should not charge based on what you pay for your gear (aside from each client's appropriation of the cost of maintenance/replacemen​t).

You are taking one inexperienced photographer and saying that the equipment they use is not capable of producing professional results. That is blatantly false. Set up two canvases. Both have the same easel, canvas, paint and brushes. Put me in front of one and Picasso in front of the other. We both paid maybe $5 for the brush and $5 for the paint.

Should we both charge $20? I mean, we paid the same for the gear.

Assume I paid $1,000 for my brush and paint. Should I charge more than Picasso? Van Gough?

Sure there are people who have a $5 brush and suck at painting. But A master with the some brush could do Starry Night.


There is an applicable quote from Picasso about the huge price he charged for a portrait he had sketched out in five minutes with a ball-point pen on a restaurant napkin.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Mar 2012
Post edited over 3 years ago by dkizzle.
     
Mar 31, 2015 14:41 as a reply to  @ RDKirk's post |  #60

travisvwright wrote in post #17499440 (external link)
Wow total jerk move (and I'm pretty sure against POTN rules). Also with some very minor PP I could make that second one a really good image.

So with minor PP the snapshot that you liked would be worth $300?

BlakeC wrote in post #17499445 (external link)
Yup! I was thinking the same thing with the second one!

So with minor PP the snapshot that you liked would be worth $300?

benji25 wrote in post #17499449 (external link)
Then what do you mean if the job costs more than the equipment you cannot expect miracles? And many wedding photographers charge much more than what a 5D3 and 70-200 cost.

This just goes to show that you should not charge based on what you pay for your gear (aside from each client's appropriation of the cost of maintenance/replacemen​t).

You are taking one inexperienced photographer and saying that the equipment they use is not capable of producing professional results. That is blatantly false. Set up two canvases. Both have the same easel, canvas, paint and brushes. Put me in front of one and Picasso in front of the other. We both paid maybe $5 for the brush and $5 for the paint.

Should we both charge $20? I mean, we paid the same for the gear.

Assume I paid $1,000 for my brush and paint. Should I charge more than Picasso? Van Gough?

Sure there are people who have a $5 brush and suck at painting. But A master with the some brush could do Starry Night.

Another person stated that every photography job should pay you more than your equipment is worth which I disputed. The reference to 5dm3 + 70-200 was for 1 portrait only not for a full wedding.

I never said that nobody is able of producing good results with low end body & lens. Novice photographer would not have better compositions / lighting / ideas when using better equipment. Everything would be the same except for ability to use better body & possibly faster lens.


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,650 views & 3 likes for this thread
Conversation overheard during photography Meetup
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Bunglas
763 guests, 290 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.