iGary said:
Sorry
!! Completely, utterly, unintential. By the way...where were you (weren't you gone for a few days - it seemed like I hadn't seen many of your posts for a bit...)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Devaluing Photography
- Thread starter mlrproducts
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry
!! Completely, utterly, unintential. By the way...where were you (weren't you gone for a few days - it seemed like I hadn't seen many of your posts for a bit...)
iGary said:
But it seems to work for Walmart and many web stores.
$2 a print IMO works when you are covering an event. Whether it be a marathon race, Bike Week in Virginia Beach, or similar "mass" events.
That being said, there is something attractive to some to only pay for the prints they actually want. The danger there is spending an hour or two in a shoot, and only getting a few bucks out of it.
Maybe there is something to value pricing for photographic work. In this case I would charge an hourly rate for the shoot (Depending on how one values ones time, the rate might be starting at $20 an hour - based on comments from friends and the like I might do it for $30-40 an hour. That rate would go up as I gained a following for my "photographic eye" - if that were to happen.
).One has to look at what the objective is. Is it that our photography is a means to pay for our "hobby". Or is a means for for us to make a living. If it is the latter, then we need to charge what is needed to make our bills.
njmac said:this thread was a great idea. I'm glad it got moved here instead of rehashing in your threads. Your right you never asked for criticism or comments on your work and what you got, you took incredibly well!
This thread, however, is the right time and place to look at this incredible issue. This drama is NOT DUE TO YOU though. Go to any photography site/forum and search this issue and you will find hundreds, if not thousands of hot/dramatic posts on this topic. DON'T take it personally - this is a huge topic for pro photographers and it means alot to the future of photography. Please think about it. There will be expensive pro photographers for Magazines like Sports Illustrated or Cosmo, and there will be people learning, and charging little for little better than snapshots.. but the middle, where you have people making a living photographing youth sports and the like at a price level that means it HAS to be a second job for someone.
I apologize if I'm one of the people not making it fun for you. I want you to succeed and I give you mucho credit for actually getting out there and getting paid!
I am enjoying your thread on how you are making it work for you and I think it will be invaluable for others just starting out.
I do, now that you and iGary have pointed it out, understand - I took this thread personally, and I really shouldn't have.
Hopefully, you understand why I took it personally in the first place. From my thread (second post) and from the OP of this thread:
Yeah, but they don't take pictures.
Anyway, I didn't mean to get so worked up about this. I think I'll go back into hiding now.
Cheers.
iGary said:Yeah, but they don't take pictures.
Anyway, I didn't mean to get so worked up about this. I think I'll go back into hiding now.
Cheers.
Don't go into hiding! You are someone on the board actually making money from photography and you have a lot to offer.
AvSRoCkCO1067 said:
If you can make a profit doing this full time, then congrats. In the DC area, your customers would eat me alive. They are savvy enough to order maybe 5 to 10 4x6 prints and then go to a Kodak Image machine and get to their minds a decent 8x10.
You would not believe the the number of times we have people trying to take 800x600 image and complain that they can't make an 8x10 from that file. Only to watch them climb into their Lexus or Hummer.
These same people will forego their health insurance, in order to get the best care. Photographers don't get the same respect. In part due IMO that some feel that anyone with a camera can give the same results.
What I would be willing to pay now for a portrait by Yousuf Karsh or Diane Arbus. The price I would pay is for their legendary photographic eye. I am sure that you or iGary could do me justice.
njmac said:Don't go into hiding! You are someone on the board actually making money from photography and you have a lot to offer.
I agree. I wish I had half the moxy that iGary has. He and I spoke about this - one on one.
Some of us have a hard time in recognizing our talents. And trying to make some income from those talents.
Gary and I got together, and I did some shooting for an article that he was doing. I will admit that I was "stressed" because of the credits he had for his own photographs.
A former co-worker and I met on the Metro platform during Rolling Thunder. We both ended our day. Later he came by the store, and I showed him my efforts from that day. His comment was that I better not show his editor my images.
In the end it was the difference between shooting for money, verses shooting for the love of photography.
Chip NoVaMac said:But it seems to work for Walmart and many web stores.
$2 a print IMO works when you are covering an event. Whether it be a marathon race, Bike Week in Virginia Beach, or similar "mass" events.
Yeah... but they're selling identical commodities and not, generally, service.
If I was looking for a picture of my daughter on a horse, I'd probably just choose whichever showed my daughter best.
If I was buying a photograph for my wall, then I'd be looking for the one that spoke to me most. That might be one that I'd taken, flaws and all, because it brought back memories or more likely, it will be an image that I think is beautiful that was taken by a pro. And that one, I'll be happy to pay more for than merely the cost of materials since I'm paying for his/her art and skill.
It's a little like most arty markets. I can go to a store and buy a ceramic or glass vase for under £5. It will hold water and flowers perfectly well.
I can go to a better store and buy a slightly nicer vase.
Or I can go to a craft shop and buy a unique piece from the designer and pay £50-£100 but which I admire.
You are far far far too kind.
And I owe you a copy of that magazine with your shots in it. Remind me next time we manage to get together.
Chip NoVaMac said:A former co-worker and I met on the Metro platform during Rolling Thunder. We both ended our day. Later he came by the store, and I showed him my efforts from that day. His comment was that I better not show his editor my images.
In the end it was the difference between shooting for money, verses shooting for the love of photography.
Obviously, I don't know for sure... but what are the chances that you are the better photographer and he just happens to work at the paper?
If you did show his editor your pictures, and then said to the editor that you love taking pictures and you'd love to contribute your pics just for credit! That's the true problem with undercutting.
You don't sound like you would ever do that though and I'm curious why you think that the difference was money vs. fun and not that its simply you are the better photographer?
There are a lot of pros who take pictures for money and come away with fabulous shots. They are rewarded with pay equal to their ability... until someone comes and offers it for free or much less.
Admittedly, I haven't read this whole thread, dang I'm lazy. But from reading almost the whole first page, I've come to this:
I understand the new photographer who will work for (nearly) nothing. After all, it is advertising, right? But I stand by the POV that we MUST NOT UNDERCHARGE! You can still undercut the competition (usually, and by comp I mean pros not the freebie photogs we're trying to rid the world of!). Believe in yourself. I'll say that again: believe in yourself. Don't feel "bad" about charging a set rate. Guess what? People are probably going to pay it!
Just this morning I had a garage sale and was trying to sell a lot of about 5 sports items (same item, different teams). I was going to sell all for $5 (not marked), but a lady only wanted 1 of them. She asked, I stated $5 (why not try?). She said no. I said $2. She paid it, and said "but its not worth it." Did I feel bad? NO NO NO! It obviously WAS worth it, or she wouldn't have paid it! If it wasn't worth it and she paid it, then why should I feel bad because she's "dumb"!?
As for building your portfolio - these are my suggestions and things I've done myself-
If you're into any type of portraits, do a TFP (time/trade for prints, or alternatively TFCD). You get pics for the folio, they get pics to take to an agency. You both got what you wanted, and neither person devalued their service. (see http://www.modelmayhem.com if you're interested in this)
If you're not doing portraits, find people to shoot who would otherwise NOT be seeking your services to pay for. If you're volunteering your services for someone who otherwise would NOT be seeking a photog, you're lessening your impact on devaluation. Also, if you make it clear your intentions (IE: these are a limited "free" series for purpose of your folio only - read up on releases, etc) then you may even have CREATED a potential source for VALUED INCOME at a later date, assuming they liked your work.
I understand the new photographer who will work for (nearly) nothing. After all, it is advertising, right? But I stand by the POV that we MUST NOT UNDERCHARGE! You can still undercut the competition (usually, and by comp I mean pros not the freebie photogs we're trying to rid the world of!). Believe in yourself. I'll say that again: believe in yourself. Don't feel "bad" about charging a set rate. Guess what? People are probably going to pay it!
Just this morning I had a garage sale and was trying to sell a lot of about 5 sports items (same item, different teams). I was going to sell all for $5 (not marked), but a lady only wanted 1 of them. She asked, I stated $5 (why not try?). She said no. I said $2. She paid it, and said "but its not worth it." Did I feel bad? NO NO NO! It obviously WAS worth it, or she wouldn't have paid it! If it wasn't worth it and she paid it, then why should I feel bad because she's "dumb"!?
As for building your portfolio - these are my suggestions and things I've done myself-
If you're into any type of portraits, do a TFP (time/trade for prints, or alternatively TFCD). You get pics for the folio, they get pics to take to an agency. You both got what you wanted, and neither person devalued their service. (see http://www.modelmayhem.com if you're interested in this)
If you're not doing portraits, find people to shoot who would otherwise NOT be seeking your services to pay for. If you're volunteering your services for someone who otherwise would NOT be seeking a photog, you're lessening your impact on devaluation. Also, if you make it clear your intentions (IE: these are a limited "free" series for purpose of your folio only - read up on releases, etc) then you may even have CREATED a potential source for VALUED INCOME at a later date, assuming they liked your work.
I think photographers (however you define that term) should charge whatever they feel is appropriate for their work. Yes, some may be far less than the professionals, but that is life.
Many people who want a professional job won't even look at someone who charges $2 a photo; something might seem "fishy" about photos that are so inexpensive. Higher prices can often signal higher quality (look at Apple as an example.)
People who want bargain basement "pro" photography will shop around for the cheapest possible place to get the product. Others want a bit more (ex. B&H vs. using pricegrabber to get gear -- even we have our own preferences for purchasing.)
The market may be a little more saturated by prosumer cameras with the D50/70 and Rebel XT, but IMO the professional market isn't greatly suffering because of it. I may be the only one who feels this way, but it's my honest opinion.
Many people who want a professional job won't even look at someone who charges $2 a photo; something might seem "fishy" about photos that are so inexpensive. Higher prices can often signal higher quality (look at Apple as an example.)
People who want bargain basement "pro" photography will shop around for the cheapest possible place to get the product. Others want a bit more (ex. B&H vs. using pricegrabber to get gear -- even we have our own preferences for purchasing.)
The market may be a little more saturated by prosumer cameras with the D50/70 and Rebel XT, but IMO the professional market isn't greatly suffering because of it. I may be the only one who feels this way, but it's my honest opinion.
I'm not entirely sure that this thread didn't change from "Uncle Photographer" to all about AvSRoCkCO1067 :again:, however, I've been on both ends I think. I started kind of young and did it right. Right by my own vision. I went to school and then landed a job with a photographer who has been doing it for 30+ years. I learned more from him than any class taught me. Even through his purist ways--which ended up rubbing off on me, we both made our money two ways; weddings and commercial product photographer. A large client base of ours were interior designers and architects, but when the canon 300 hit we didn't hear from those people nearly as much. Though their photos weren't nearly the quality, they did the job. You have to know that we shot with large format cameras and brought our own lamps and bounces and what not. There wasn't this point and shoot with the on-board flash or even a slave that we bought at adorama the night before.
Bottom line with us and then me as he grew tired of the weddings mostly, was that we were indeed having to push our way through events getting smacked in the head by the d50's of the time with the longest lenses and such. In the end, our success was our greatest failure. For wedding packages we offered an 8x10 or 11x14 platinum print on rag. That process alone is worth mucho bucks. The 8x10 and 11x14 were contact prints. (that means that the negatives were THAT big for anyone who has no idea what a contact print is). But the process is very hands on and it's a process that I love. You cannot replace that...you can come close on a computer, but you won't ever replace it. At any rate, people simply couldn't see the benefit of it any longer when the new printers were coming out with new papers and such. To them, they loved the look, but found similar results on a pc. Our success was our end...but there are no regrets.
As far as me. I went down a different path. I have not lost interest, but I think, like the OP in a way, there is just so many people out there with a camera calling themself a photographer, that it just doesn't make sense to plan a career around it. At least for me that is. In time I'll revamp my website and start shooting around town again, but 50+ hours at work and full time grad school does not afford me much time to mess around.
I read through that "how to become a 17 year old photographer" and just about laughed. I kept my comments to myself though, because when I was 17 I thought I had all the answers too.
We're never going to get away from Uncle Photographer. He is here to stay. But as it was said before, if you don't have something unique to offer, you're just another Uncle Photographer imho.
Bottom line with us and then me as he grew tired of the weddings mostly, was that we were indeed having to push our way through events getting smacked in the head by the d50's of the time with the longest lenses and such. In the end, our success was our greatest failure. For wedding packages we offered an 8x10 or 11x14 platinum print on rag. That process alone is worth mucho bucks. The 8x10 and 11x14 were contact prints. (that means that the negatives were THAT big for anyone who has no idea what a contact print is). But the process is very hands on and it's a process that I love. You cannot replace that...you can come close on a computer, but you won't ever replace it. At any rate, people simply couldn't see the benefit of it any longer when the new printers were coming out with new papers and such. To them, they loved the look, but found similar results on a pc. Our success was our end...but there are no regrets.
As far as me. I went down a different path. I have not lost interest, but I think, like the OP in a way, there is just so many people out there with a camera calling themself a photographer, that it just doesn't make sense to plan a career around it. At least for me that is. In time I'll revamp my website and start shooting around town again, but 50+ hours at work and full time grad school does not afford me much time to mess around.
I read through that "how to become a 17 year old photographer" and just about laughed. I kept my comments to myself though, because when I was 17 I thought I had all the answers too.
We're never going to get away from Uncle Photographer. He is here to stay. But as it was said before, if you don't have something unique to offer, you're just another Uncle Photographer imho.
I was reading a similar thread on another forum, and the quote was made:
"It isn't crowded at the top."
Opinions?
"It isn't crowded at the top."
Opinions?
mlrproducts said:
haha, well it's probably out of most people's financial reach to have Heinz Kluetmeier be the little league team photographer or Joe Buissink to be their wedding photographer
Actually, I tried to make that point earlier. Its the middle of the photography range that really loses out. If you take fantastic pictures - even to the point that you are the Kluetmeier of the little league set, at that level YOU CANNOT COMPETE WITH FREE!
Sorry for yelling but that is a huge difference from the Life magazine, National Geographic photogs, the professional sports shooters - They will get top dollar because the magazines won't hire the mail room kid's uncle because he has a new D70 and will volunteer to shoot for free.
In contrast to that, in the middle area where you have wedding photographers and youth sports it is increasingly difficult to command a decent salary because people will take "good enough" for a cheap price and that doesn't happen in the top tier with the cream of the crop.
The photogs in the cream of the crop of the middle tier are constantly being told " Yeah, everyone loves your pictures, and you've always done a great job... but.... one of the teachers said they will take pictures of the school football team for free and we (the team) get to sell the pictures ourselves and make the profit.... yeah,yeah, we know he's not as good as you but the parent's really don't care"
So what's the cream of the crop to do? Get a day job.
EDIT: No, I don't believe the industry is as dire as that. I was just illustrating a point that does happen. I think the smart photographers offer things that keep them in business and sets them apart from the rest, its just becoming more difficult.