should you be charging if you have to ask how much to charge?

[Timmyjoe]

It's not uncommon for my clients to comment "you must have a great camera to make photos like that". My comment is let me place my camera on the table and see what kind of photos it makes without me. It's what's two inches behind it not the camera.

I'm afraid the perception is all you need is a DSLR and Photoshop and you're a pro.

Was shooting a high school football game for the paper last weekend and a woman came up to me, she was shooting for one of the online houses that posts 200-300 pics of every game. She looked at the big telephoto on my D4 and asked who I was shooting for. I told her and her response was,"If I had a lens like that I could shoot for them." And I just smiled, (because I'm sure the images I send in have nothing to do with the decades I've been doing this and everything to do with that Nikkor telephoto).

But all these folks who are picking up consumer DSLR's with kit zooms and giving away their images for free are certainly driving prices down. I think sometimes the people who are "paying for photos" know even less about what things should cost than the folks asking "how much should I charge." Both are not good for my bottom line.

 

[x-ray]

I can't tell you how many people I meet tell me they shoot their kids soccer and football games and give away or sell cheap the photos of other kids to their parents. Fortunately I never did any weddings or sports or for that matter never did anything other than corporate work.

I seems all that it takes is a cheap camera and someone complementing you on your photo's and your in business.

 

[DominikDUK]

I hear that doing weddings is pretty hard work as is sport shooting it seems that there is a lot of snobbism in this discussion.

Also doing something for a long time doesn't mean you do it right or that it is better than something someone new to the job does.

Timmyjoe at least is honest "But all these folks who are picking up consumer DSLR's with kit zooms and giving away their images for free are certainly driving prices down. I think sometimes the people who are "paying for photos" know even less about what things should cost than the folks asking "how much should I charge." Both are not good for my bottom line."

If they give the images away for free they are not pros and don't even pretend to be.

But Timmyjoe has hit the problem on the head it's not the "promateur" photographer but the customer who doesn't appreciate HQ work and how difficult it is to get a good shot.

 

[KM-25]

Where you ever young?

Yep, and I learned through mentorship and following my instincts what to charge.

In order to have an instinct as to what to charge, you have to have at least a modicum of business sense. To succeed in photography greatly you have to have billows of raw talent and the entrepreneurial spirit to innovate you and your unique brand forward.

I never low balled or did give-aways to break in, I just did what I was taught was right and did fine.

But back to Back Alley's inquiry....yeah, at this stage of the game & with all the information out there, if you have to ask, you have not done your homework and are likely not up to the task of the equation at hand....self motivated individuals exhaust all options before posting the question outright.

 

[back alley]

i agree 100% that today's consumer is woefully ignorant of what constitutes a good image. i see compliments flying all over facebook about portraits with trees sticking out of someone's head etc.

 

[JHutchins]

i agree 100% that today's consumer is woefully ignorant of what constitutes a good image. i see compliments flying all over facebook about portraits with trees sticking out of someone's head etc.

I'm reminded of an incident in an Iris Murdoch book. One character, a wine snob, offers to help another to understand wine. The second character refuses, asking why she would wantonly destroy her taste for cheap wine. She goes on to say that life is a series of small pleasures and if those pleasures can be taken cheaply so much the better.

Obtuseness, when taken in moderation, can make life very much easier, allowing us to take joy in a portrait of a loved daughter while not noticing the green leafy antennae. Maybe they're missing the greater joy of a portrait of a by a latter day Yousuf Karsh, but those are so very hard to come by. And that kind of benightedness isn't offensive. When we see it we can give a warm smile at the innocent pleasure taken and refrain from spoiling it by calling attention to the flaws that are there.

What is less easily passed over with an avuncular smile is this "everyone with a camera thinks they're a photographer" attitude. I, at least, find it irksome. What's wrong with encouraging people who are trying to take seriously something you love and helping them become what they could be if they aren't quite there yet?

Some people, I expect, are concerned with the market for their own work but if you're losing out to some everyman with a camera maybe that means your own work doesn't have as much more to offer people as you'd like it to. Photography is an art in the sense that a person with vision can produce things someone without vision never could *and* can convey that vision -- make it a revelation to those who lack it. Much better to become a prophet than just carp about those still struggling. And if you can't become a prophet then maybe someone out there is carping about you too.

Me, I'll stick with amateurism and try to please myself.

 

[Godfrey]

that's what they are doing... research... (also)by asking people with experience on forums.
Plenty of people here on RFF who (at least they say they) are long time pros with lots of experience, exhibitions and money made with their images.
What's wrong with asking them?
+Maybe they already have read here and there, have formed an idea and they just look for a 2nd opinion?

Some folks have indeed more self-confidence or more optimism, than experience... This, sadly, will probably change over time 😀
but some of us are also guilty here, isn't it?

Nothing wrong with asking people on a forum, but ask SPECIFIC people who's input you have found to be credible. There's no point to creating a forum discussion thread to discuss your personal business and pricing practices, IMO.

G

 

[Timmyjoe]

Also doing something for a long time doesn't mean you do it right or that it is better than something someone new to the job does.

Actually, it does. Like in many jobs, wedding photography and sports photography are jobs/skill sets that take practice to develop. Having years of experience dealing with everything the job can throw at you makes you better at the job (or you fall by the wayside if you can't overcome what is thrown at you). Anyone can pick up a consumer DSLR and kit lens and sometimes get a good shot at a sporting event or at a wedding. But when it's your job, you have to come back with good shots EVERY TIME from EVERY EVENT or EVERY WEDDING, even when all the circumstances are working against you.

So Yeah, years of experience does matter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The problem of course, is getting real information.

I for one would never discuss publicly what I charge for consulting, except to say it is the most I can possibly squeeze out of a client, and in the end it will sometimes be too little.

I once offered work to a particularly fussy client at double my rate, thinking it the only polite way to put him off. To my amazement he accepted, and all I can say is, I charged half of what the job was worth.

Been there, done that.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Darthfeeble]

"Rookie questions about gear...... makes me wanna to scream"
?? Gee, not all of us knew everything about photography when we started.

 

[back alley]

"Rookie questions about gear...... makes me wanna to scream"
?? Gee, not all of us knew everything about photography when we started.

agreed, but then i never tried to charge a fee for using a camera i didn't understand.

 

[DominikDUK]

Actually, it does. Like in many jobs, wedding photography and sports photography are jobs/skill sets that take practice to develop. Having years of experience dealing with everything the job can throw at you makes you better at the job (or you fall by the wayside if you can't overcome what is thrown at you). Anyone can pick up a consumer DSLR and kit lens and sometimes get a good shot at a sporting event or at a wedding. But when it's your job, you have to come back with good shots EVERY TIME from EVERY EVENT or EVERY WEDDING, even when all the circumstances are working against you.

So Yeah, years of experience does matter.

Actually yes it does and no it doesn't quiet a few pro-photographers are not good at their job and survive because the had little competion thanks to either legislation or location.

Until 2 years ago only those who had an apprenticeship in photography could become photographers in Austria (exception press photographer and artists) even the graduates of the Graphische Bundes Lehr und Versuchsanstalt (one of the oldest and best photo schools on the planet,at least in past) couldn't open a photostudio without the okay of the photographers guild. The heads of the guild were often mediocre to bad photographers and used their connections and political clout to keep the number of competitors low. That was until 2 years ago thanks to the EU they've lost the monopoly and now many serious amateurs who have been photographing for quiet some time and often are just as good if not better than the apprenticed photographers are able to open a Studio of course quiet a few hacks were among the amateurs as well.

Due to the monopoly photography has become very very stale and boring the same poses, the same lighting etc... so I see the influx of new talents and the talentless with very different eyes, they are the ones who can save the pro-photographer world by giving it the fresh blood and ideas it so desperately needs.

 

[Timmyjoe]

. . . now many serious amateurs who have been photographing for quiet some time . . .

Exactly my point. An amateur that has been shooting weddings or sports for quite some time is going to be better at dealing with all that is thrown at them and will deliver more consistent results than someone who just bought a consumer DSLR with kit lens.

I have no knowledge of how things operate in Austria. I was referring to how things operate here in the States.

 

[DominikDUK]

Just as boring 🙂 Most portraits studio work is the same around the world and quiet boring to be honest. Interesting and unique work is rare (applies to amateurs and pros). My work is boring as well mostly art reproductions not very creative. 🙁

I do believe that it is a fallacy to believe that someone who buys a consumer camera and a kit lens doesn't know about photography even in the past pros would use these tools and again the definition of pro is someone who can make a living from his work in order to be succesful they have to have customers who like their work. Regarding consistency most pro portraits photographer use the same lighting setup for pretty much every costumer so one thing they are is consistent doesn't make the pictures interesting though.

And I agree people usually get better with time but there are people that are great right from the beginning. 17 year old Stanley Kubrick for instance had they eye, the vision and the luck.

 

[photomoof]

Actually yes it does and no it doesn't quiet a few pro-photographers are not good at their job and survive because the had little competion thanks to either legislation or location.

Until 2 years ago only those who had an apprenticeship in photography could become photographers in Austria (exception press photographer and artists) even the graduates of the Graphische Bundes Lehr und Versuchsanstalt (one of the oldest and best photo schools on the planet,at least in past) couldn't open a photostudio without the okay of the photographers guild.

It was crazy anyway, if the photographic services was registered in another EU country (say the UK), the Austrian guild could not exclude the business.

 

[DominikDUK]

I fully agree, the funniest part was that the guild named darkroom chemicals as reason that amateurs and graduates from the graphische should be excluded from opening a photography business this was in 2013. The court saw it very differently and correctly said the quality of the work is what counts if the amateur is bad, his business will fail if it doesn't he has proven that he can run a photography business.

Another weird thing about the whole affair was that the majority of the Guild members were pro amateurs just the heads were against it.

 

[toyfel]

And I agree people usually get better with time but there are people that are great right from the beginning. 17 year old Stanley Kubrick for instance had they eye, the vision and the luck.

Great example. Perfectly proves your point. What Kubrick did in his first year as a photographer was simply amazing.

 

[f2bthere]

The pros I talk with laugh at the ASMP pricing guide. I think it makes sense to get the opinions of working professionals, especially those familiar with the local market.

I also think it is in a working pros best interest to help new photographers, skilled or not, understand reasonable pricing. I don't think bad photographers charging money do nearly the same harm to working pros that gifted photographers giving away their work for free do.

If customers expect to pay for photography, they will become more discerning and those with skills and experience will benefit.