My rant

What is it these days with digital photography where a person buys an entry level DSLR with a kit lens, takes a few hundred pictures and get a couple compliments, and all of a sudden they think they are a professional photographer? My wife insisted on family photos for us and our kids, on our 40th anniversary. She hired a photographer recommended to her by a coworker. After viewing them today I just couldn't believe how this lady could charge $175 for these. She didn't like the idea of indoor pictures but due to the rain, she didn't have much choice. I told my wife that anyone can take decent outdoor photos but indoor shots take more experience and know how. Her indoor lighting consisted of a soft box and reflector and the lighting is horribly uneven. I've taken a few pics of my grandsons with a backdrop and bouncing the flash off the ceiling and had much better results. Her backdrop is her wall. The group shots all show the white baseboard at the bottom of the wall. The majority are shot so tight that it would be impossible to frame them. Actually, on a couple of kids sitting on the floor barefoot, the tip of the toe is cut off. My wife is going to find out if these are cropped shots. If so, there is still some hope. A couple are even quite a bit off center. I could go on and on but it just seems that nowadays, since digital costs next to nothing to shoot, too many consider themselves professional when they have no idea what they are doing. You didn't see this when the cost of film came into playback in the days of 35mm. Sorry, but I am just so irritated. My wife is lucky I'm not the one dealing with this photographer. I'd demand at least a partial refund.

Does your wife also hire plumbers, electricians, gynecologists without checking their credentials? Caveat emptor, my friend.

Honestly, I think most of these types get away with it because the consumer is as uninformed about photography as the shooter is.

Folks have purchased film SLRs, had cards printed up, and passed themselves off as 'pro' photographers for decades.
Now

1. digital simply makes it easier, and
   
2. cheap cards from Vistaprint make the task of business cards even simpler than finding a local print shop and laying out business cards.
   
3. Now, with programs like Photoshop, one can much more easily fix signficant technical screwups, unlike shooting film and having the lab try to get reasonable prints in spite of major exposure errors.
   
4. Add in cameras with auto exposure, auto bracketing, auto focus and focus confirmation lights, auto ISO, eTTL flash, and spray-and-pray mode just to be sure, and instant chimping,
   

• it tells you it needs gas
  
• it reminds you to change oil, or to put some in
  
• it tells you tire pressure is low
  
• it shifts for itself, so that you don't know now to choose best gear to use for any situation
  
• it warns you when you drift in your lane
  
• it parks itself (and the DMV no longer bothers to test for parallel parking skills)
  
• it has runflat tires so you don't even need to know how to use a jack and a lug wrench
  

$175 is pretty low for any type of photo shoot honestly. That's lower than any session fee I would charge. And did you look up any work of this "photographer" before forking over the cash, or simply take the recommendation from your wife's co-worker? If no research was done before hand, the bad images are as much on you as they are on her. Good luck trying to get your refund. Doing proper research is the name of the game when finding a photographer that can do good work and fit into your budget.

would it be unreasonable to ask a prospective photographer for extensive samples of their work?

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18364577
$175 is pretty low for any type of photo shoot honestly.

$175 today is like charging $93 in 1990. Back in 1990 $100 was the lowest of the bottom feeder rates to shoot a few rolls of film and turn them over to the client for processing.

Wilt wrote in post #18364582
$175 today is like charging $93 in 1990. Back in 1990 $100 was the lowest of the bottom feeder rates to shoot a few rolls of film and turn them over to the client for processing.

Well these days there are people shooting full weddings for less than $100 on Craigslist. Like I said above. It's the client's responsibility to do their research if they want quality work. Someone would never buy a Westinghouse TV at 1/4 of the price of an LG and expect the same quality I hope.

This is the battle we shooters face every day. I can't compete pricewise with this kind of photog, but few clients can see, appreciate, and are willing to pay for the quality difference. I'd probably be charging double ($350.00) for this type of shoot, but would your wife had hired me? Probably not. $175.00 apparently is the going rate for "good enough" photography.

I can remember my Dad talking about the days he shot weddings in 4x5 with a Speedgraphic. Talk about having to nail the shots.

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18364583
Well these days there are people shooting full weddings for less than $100 on Craigslist.

OMG...that is like earning $54 to do the same thing in 1990! the bottom feeders have gone downscale.

My rant wasn't so much what she charged, although $175/hour is pretty crazy wages, it was more about too many people nowadays self proclaiming themselves as professionals when they clearly have no idea what they are doing. But, too many consumers are thrilled to just get a pic of their kid with a smile on his/her face. This didn't happen 20 years ago, at least not around here. Due to the cost of film and processing and not having the luxury of seeing the pic immediately after depressing the shutter, it allowed the true professionals to actually make a living at their trade.

Sounds like that "pro" needs someone to show her the error of her ways. Complain directly to her. Point out the problems with the images. Demand a re-shoot or money back, just like real customers do to real professionals.

Larry Johnson wrote in post #18364829
Sounds like that "pro" needs someone to show her the error of her ways. Complain directly to her. Point out the problems with the images. Demand a re-shoot or money back, just like real customers do to real professionals.

Unfortunately, this was all my wife's project and she is too nice to complain and I don't dare cross her. I would have done it but my patience runs too thin with a couple of my grandsons. I told her a better idea would be to hire a clown to entertain them while I take the pictures.

A few years ago I advertised photography lessons. I gave lessons to a gal doing sports photography for an area newspaper and another time to a gal shooting weddings. One thing all my customers had in common was that none of them really knew how to operate their camera. They would ask me what different buttons did and how to access menu items. This just blew my mind. Seriously? They get a camera and advertise themselves as professionals and don't read their instruction manual? Ridiculous. OK, rant over.

Nothing new here. This has gone on across professions for years. Paint sprayers have replaced a quality brush job, draftsmen using CAD software turn out poor quality construction drawings, cleaning people using spray and wipe products don't deep clean anything. Journalists that can't spell, mechanics that do sloppy work, so called real estate professionals, wannabe interior designers and graphic designers, and the list goes on and has has always gone on throughout history.

My g/f was complaining about how their corporate headshots at her job were not done well and if I would come do new shots for them (@200 people) for the cost of lunch. She also insisted that they didn't have to be 'me' quality shots, that snapshots with no processing and a slight crop would be sufficient. I declined, since I knew that even 'that' would be several hours worth of work.

However, I took the 40D, 70-200 and tripod down to her office, set up in a lounge space (metered, taped off where to stand and where to put the tripod, etc); and, she scheduled some days where she worked from that space and took new shots herself as people found time to stop by.

Everyone was thrilled. The company, previously, hired a photographer who came in with a simple P&S, stood people in front of a strong, backlighting with busy buildings behind and shot with huge DoF so the background was a mess and all of their faces underexposed. For this, they'd payed $500.

As that shows, it's all down to what people want and what they are willing to pay. As much as one would like them to do so 'professional' and 'good' do not mean the same thing.

texkam wrote in post #18364842
Nothing new here. This has gone on across professions for years. Paint sprayers have replaced a quality brush job, draftsmen using CAD software turn out poor quality construction drawings, cleaning people using spray and wipe products don't deep clean anything. Journalists that can't spell, mechanics that do sloppy work, so called real estate professionals, wannabe interior designers and graphic designers, and the list goes on and has has always gone on throughout history.

texkam wrote in post #18364842
Nothing new here. This has gone on across professions for years. Paint sprayers have replaced a quality brush job, draftsmen using CAD software turn out poor quality construction drawings, cleaning people using spray and wipe products don't deep clean anything. Journalists who can't spell, mechanics who do sloppy work, so called real estate professionals, wannabe interior designers and graphic designers, and the list goes on, and has has always gone on, throughout history.

How about writers who don't quite grasp their native language?.