Trying to start up a small photography business

[compuwar]

Anyway, my biggest suggestion is to NOT start a photography business. It seems like everyone thinks they have photography skills and are good enough to charge money because DSLRs are quite cheap and they took a good photo of their cousin once or twice. How good do you think you are at photography AND Photoshop, because you'll likely need to be quite proficient at both to really warrant charging money.

Actually, this really couldn't be much further from the truth. Many, many successful photography businesses are successful not because of photography skills, but because of the owner's BUSINESS skills.

My own photography business would be much more successful if I spent more time on marketing and bizdev than I do, but I'm currently involved in two start-up businesses so my photography gets sidelined a lot.

Even the words "Photography business" mean a bunch of different things, from fine art, to sports, to events, to weddings, to stock, to portraits, to textbooks...

All ego aside, the measure of success in a photography business isn't "how good is my photography" but "are people buying what I'm selling?" That's why I suggested writing a business plan. Until you figure out what you're selling to who and how much you need to sell it's not really a business, it's a hobby that might make the occasional buck.

I've seen plenty of good photographers who couldn't sustain a business and I think I've seen even more bad photographers who have very successful photography businesses. I've seen shots that I evaluated as "I've thrown a lot better than that away" sell, and I've seen people rave over stuff that I wouldn't even press the shutter on. Heck, I've had shots I knew were great not sell at a show, and others that I thought were only slightly above average sell like wildfire.

It's rare that I see consistent shots from someone where I'd think "Hey, I'd buy their work." William Neil is about the only photographer who consistently produces work that I'd hang on my walls if my own wasn't already up. I've seen lots of gallery and Web portfolios where I wouldn't pay a dime for any of the work displayed (including a few "big names,") so without actually looking at the OP's site, I'll just chime in that that's hardly a metric for success.

YMMV.

 

[Clix Pix]

Glad you see you changed your mind. The photos that come out of any DSLR nowadays is around the same, and that includes the "consumer-level" cameras, which are just labels designated by marketing folks so that consumers have a clearer idea of where to start looking for a DSLR. In fact, members of forums like this one sometimes label cameras like this, and not the manufacturer. The 400D feels cheap, but he's selling photo quality, not ergonomics or camera build quality.

Hey, Abstract, I assume that this paragraph is addressed to me rather than to the OP?

I am sure that if someone were to put photos taken by the same photographer with first a Digital Rebel and the kit lens and then Canon's top-of-the-line professional camera with their best-quality lens (in the same focal range) side-by-side, it would be very quickly apparent which was which.... Or, closer to home, since we're both Nikon shooters, I'm sure that if you were to shoot a photo with your D50 and its kit lens and then shoot with my D2Xs and the 17-55mm we'd see a difference in the images. Why? The better lenses have greater resolving quality and usually much better bokeh. This isn't to say that you can't get decent images with the D50 and the kit lens: you can. Where the differences are more apparent is when doing certain kinds of shooting,such as sports or birding, where the quick focusing and high speed of the cameras professionals use is needed. Both a good camera body and good lens are required. There is indeed a difference between say, the 70-300mm VR "consumer" lens and the 300mm f/2.8 VR prime lens....

As far as changing my mind, no, I really didn't. I simply stated that sure, he could go ahead and get the Digital Rebel, etc., BUT then followed that up with the strong suggestion that he not even be thinking of trying to start up a photography business right now. He still would need better gear before he attempts to do so. The Digital Rebel will be a good first digital camera, a learning tool, while he figures out that opening a photography business isn't as easy as he seems to think.

Like you, Abstract, I looked at his images on Flickr. Very nice, yes, BUT..... saleable images? No. Also, it is important to note that the kind of images he shot (macros, landscapes, a couple of people) are shot with various and sometimes expensive lenses and tools that he would need to purchase if he were going to create images that people would want to purchase. Also, the most important thing here, they are not unique. Macro photos are a dime-a-dozen, and so are landscapes. These days people can purchase any number of stock images from either a professional photographer or a stock agency online. Many professional photographers earn much of their money by shooting weddings and portraits or specialize in product photography or some other niche.

Ambition and drive are wonderful traits to have -- but so is patience and the willingness to learn things first before plunging head-long into a venture for which one may not be at all prepared.

 

[Abstract]

All ego aside, the measure of success in a photography business isn't "how good is my photography" but "are people buying what I'm selling?" That's why I suggested writing a business plan. Until you figure out what you're selling to who and how much you need to sell it's not really a business, it's a hobby that might make the occasional buck.

I've seen plenty of good photographers who couldn't sustain a business and I think I've seen even more bad photographers who have very successful photography businesses. I've seen shots that I evaluated as "I've thrown a lot better than that away" sell, and I've seen people rave over stuff that I wouldn't even press the shutter on. Heck, I've had shots I knew were great not sell at a show, and others that I thought were only slightly above average sell like wildfire.

May be true from a business perspective, I guess. As someone who loves photography, I'd personally feel guilty about selling bad photos, even if the customer thought it was good. I have never thought of the business aspect of it, which shows. However, I think I'd rather keep it that way and not produce crap.....even if it's only for myself and my own sanity.

But yes, good business means sell photos and stay in business.

 

[Abstract]

Or, closer to home, since we're both Nikon shooters, I'm sure that if you were to shoot a photo with your D50 and its kit lens and then shoot with my D2Xs and the 17-55mm we'd see a difference in the images. Why? The better lenses have greater resolving quality and usually much better bokeh.

But take a D200 and a D50, put the same lens on both cameras, and then shoot in RAW, and you end up with similar quality, even if the number of pixels is different. Same goes for the D80 and D200, D2Xs and D200, D2Xs and D80, etc.

This isn't to say that you can't get decent images with the D50 and the kit lens: you can. Where the differences are more apparent is when doing certain kinds of shooting,such as sports or birding, where the quick focusing and high speed of the cameras professionals use is needed.

True, but if someone can shoot well with a 400D (like a friend of mine), that's the most important thing. The final product is all anyone cares about. If some says "Great photos. Too bad you produced them with a "consumer-grade" camera", then I'd probably ignore him/her.

And I was actually directing it to you and Lovesong, but I quoted your post since it came up first

 

[compuwar]

May be true from a business perspective, I guess. As someone who loves photography, I'd personally feel guilty about selling bad photos, even if the customer thought it was good. I have never thought of the business aspect of it, which shows. However, I think I'd rather keep it that way and not produce crap.....even if it's only for myself and my own sanity.

But yes, good business means sell photos and stay in business.

Hey, I didn't shell out for a 400/2.8 because I wasn't selling photos from the 80-400VR or the 50-500 Sigma. I believe that craftsmanship still has a place in the world, and that quality matters. However, from a business perspective, I'd say that my ROI numbers for the 400/2.8 had to make sense (well, ok- not really- I could have just gotten the expensive toy) for me to go that route rather than something cheaper (I think the 600/4 is the only common lens Nikon makes that's more than the 400/2.8.) Fortunately for me, the ROI wasn't all that difficult a number and the 2.8 gives me much more shooting time when my subjects are most active- that's a competitive advantage- even in a market where the competition is less of an issue than getting images out in front of a buyer.

One of the most difficult things about selling your work is choosing what to sell, and admitting that you're not as tuned in to what the public will buy as you think you are.

Initially, a few years ago, I seeded a few extra photos that were acceptable quality-wise but things I thought nobody would touch just to make a wider range of product for folks browsing- when those images sold better than a series that I thought would sell well which hasn't produced a single sale, it changed my outlook. I know why the buyers found those images compelling, and I've shot more like them over time, but they're still not in the collection of stuff that's made my own walls.

The other thing that helped my outlook was entering a photography contest that helped to fund a group at one of the places I shoot. The organizers had a "donate your picture for us to sell" option, and I opted for it for my prints except one which was a dye sub print and not up to my quality standards.

While their judge didn't think my images were "winners[1]," inside a couple of days, my images had sold- while some of the winning ones hadn't, and my images were priced higher than at least 80% of the others.

Ultimately, business-wise it's about sales, and I outsold everyone there and more quickly than all but two of the winners who sold in the same timeframe. Though I'd like peer recognition, ultimately I'd rather have my images be the sort that people will happily pay to hang on their walls than to have another practitioner like them.

Making the decision to sell, especially in the fine art market is a tough one. For me, it's changed how much I'll pass around my images, where I'll put them, and in some cases what I'll shoot. On the other hand, sharing what I capture with folks who'll spend their money to hang it on their wall and look at it day in and day out is especially rewarding.

[1] I thought one of the winners had real merit, one was ok, and the other four weren't impressive at all. When I sat down and thought about it, that made me happy- it meant I wouldn't see competitive work from the same area that looked the same as mine.

 

[Crawn2003]

It seems like everyone thinks they have photography skills and are good enough to charge money because DSLRs are quite cheap and they took a good photo of their cousin once or twice. How good do you think you are at photography AND Photoshop, because you'll likely need to be quite proficient at both to really warrant charging money. If you're good, then that's fantastic, but get the equipment first, play around, then see if you're worth the price you ask for.

PS: I wouldn't pay for the photos you posted on your Flickr account, landscape, macro, or otherwise. That's why I made my suggestion.

Exactly! I was thinking around those same lines but it seems like when ever I post a comment like that I start getting hate PM or flame wars.

I went (and still going) to a photography school for two years and I'm still learning new things every day. My photos I took at the beginning only my mom would buy, you know what I mean? They weren't that great and they were "bland" if nothing else.

Now I'm creating major pieces and working in a studio that actually does commercial photography. I worked hard. I had to go out and constantly be turned down for jobs and internships, even though my portfolio was awesome. I even got shorted by Apple, Inc. because they had a photography assistant position available. I sent in my resume', etc. and didn't hear back from them for a while. I finally found out that the person that does hiring was gone for a while but was back checking the resumes'. HOPE! But I emailed a few days later and found out someone else had gotten it. (Probably someone close to Cupertino so they didn't have to pay relocation costs)

***My own opinion, no flame wars please***
But what I'm getting at is, yeah, I went to a school for photography. I really believe and feel that I'm a professional photographer. Granted, not everyone has to go to a school for photography to become a "professional" but it doesn't hurt. Some people never take a class on photography and can sell prints. Good for them but I feel better having that degree because it makes me feel like I accomplished something not only for myself but for my employer.
***End of my opinion, thanks for no flame wars***

You have ambition, go out and play. Like abstract said, and I'm not trying to put you down, but I wouldn't pay for any of your photos. But take this advice and what others are saying:

Go out and shoot. You're not wasting money on actual film and as you go, you'll get even better. You're decent. You have potential. Take what you know and go further. If you can, go to a few classes. Some are free, some are just a little money but in the end, you could make all that money back in prints.

Go for it!
~Crawn

 

[Clix Pix]

But take a D200 and a D50, put the same lens on both cameras, and then shoot in RAW, and you end up with similar quality, even if the number of pixels is different. Same goes for the D80 and D200, D2Xs and D200, D2Xs and D80, etc.

I don't think so. There's a reason Nikon charges significantly more for its higher-end camera bodies and its higher-end lenses. Have you handled a D200? A D2Xs? They are significantly different than a D50 in many obvious and not-so-obvious ways. True, the lens will make a difference as well -- MORE of a difference, actually -- but in the end both camera body itself and lens play a role in the final outcome of an image. Actually I am supposed to be getting ready for a shoot tomorrow and don't have time right now to run out and shoot the same image with the D40, D80, D200 and D2Xs and one lens.... Maybe I can do that on Sunday, as it does sound like an interesting challenge! Don't have a D50, though, to toss into the mix.... I'll have to think about which lens to put on, too....

 

[Lovesong]

I think that what Abstract is arguing for is the old adage that "it's the photographer, stupid."

Yes- you can in the best of all possible worlds get as good of a picture using a disposable camera as you could with a DSLR. I think what Clix Pix and I were saying is that you wouldn't want to have your livelihood depend on it. Yes- using RAW you can get equivalent images from a D40x, a D80, and a D200, using the same lens. All three cameras use the same sensors from Sony (though I think Abstract and I determined that the D80 uses the slightly newer one a while back).

The point is that there is a difference between the cameras and the way they operate. I use Canons and have messed around quite a bit with a Rebel XT and, obviously a 5D. The difference isn't so much in the image quality, but in the method of controlling your camera. Messing around with menus while I'm trying to capture a moment is not my idea of fun. If I was to start a business where clients depend on the images that I produce for them, I think that I would go insane if I had to deal with the XT.

My opinion- and I'm going to go out on a limb here, and likely get flamed by everyone and their mothers, is that entry level cameras are just that- a bridge between the P&S and the true photographic tools. Most people that use them- and I'm not trying to insult anyone at these forums (I mean friekin' freebooter uses a D40, and you've all seen his images)- tend to get one of these "big cameras" and leave them on auto, or if they are courageous, on the P settings. This is a true disservice to the cameras and their possibilities, but, nevertheless, the complexity of using anything else (i.e. digging through menues to get change the focus point or the camera drive) is likely to be enough of a factor to turn people off of photography as such.

So here it is- I'm not arguing that you can't get as good of an image from a cheaper camera than you could from a more expensive one. I've taken some shots with a 2.1 mp Olympus that have been better than many of the pictures I was able to take with my Maxxum and even my 5D. The point is using the latter two is a more rewarding experience, you're more likely to achieve the effect you're after, and the quality of the images (in terms of creative design) over a large volume is likely to be better.

 

[aaron.lee2006]

You really will need a more sophisticated camera than the Digital Rebel if you are intending to shoot weddings and events, etc. And, as mentioned, you will need a backup body. Lenses are even more critical than the camera body, though. I notice you just mention "extra lenses." Have you given serious consideration to just what those will need to be? To what type of shooting experiences you will have? To which lenses will be necessary for which situation? Some lenses can cost several hundred dollars and into the thousands of dollars. Are you prepared for that? What in your experience to date has given you the idea that you are in a position to start a photography business? Have you ever even used a DSLR before?

You also will need to add a couple of external hard drives because you'll need more than the 250 GB HD your iMac offers. If your business really takes off, you actually will need a Mac Pro with at least 6 or 8 GB RAM for optimum use of Photoshop and Aperture.

I strongly disagree. Your lenses are more important then the camera body. There is nothing wrong with starting a business with a Digital Rebel. I did it myself with the same camera and I have a good amount of jobs already to go for this summer. No I am not charging an extreme rate. I just need a little extra money. I use my MacBook Pro for everything. Using a Mac Pro is not a good idea because you don't need it. Save your money buy some lenses and then you can buy a new computer and it still would not have to be a Mac Pro. I myself am planning on by a Dual PowerMac G5 this summer as my workstation.

 

[compuwar]

We don't often disagree, but here's my take...

I am sure that if someone were to put photos taken by the same photographer with first a Digital Rebel and the kit lens and then Canon's top-of-the-line professional camera with their best-quality lens (in the same focal range) side-by-side, it would be very quickly apparent which was which.... Or, closer to home, since we're both Nikon shooters, I'm sure that if you were to shoot a photo with your D50 and its kit lens and then shoot with my D2Xs and the 17-55mm we'd see a difference in the images. Why?

Side-by-side at larger than 8x10, for sure, but that doesn't mean you can't get saleable, publishable excellent pictures with a D50. Swap the lens order , so the kit lens is on the 2xs and the 17-55 is on the D50 though- print at 8x10- which will be "better?" By how much?

The better lenses have greater resolving quality and usually much better bokeh. This isn't to say that you can't get decent images with the D50 and the kit lens: you can. Where the differences are more apparent is when doing certain kinds of shooting,such as sports or birding, where the quick focusing and high speed of the cameras professionals use is needed. Both a

I think (and here's where we disagree) that "needed" is too strong a term, "advantageous?" For sure! But sports and birding were both shot well before we had today's AF and machine-gun frame rates. Sure, it's much *easier* to get the shot, but I don't think I'd call it necessary. Heck, I've shot birds with an M645- hardly a speed demon to work with, and all manual focus, all the time.

good camera body and good lens are required. There is indeed a difference between say, the 70-300mm VR "consumer" lens and the 300mm f/2.8 VR prime lens....

While a good lens is required (though less often other than for light-gathering and DoF requirements- a lot of today's "consumer" lenses are often better than yesterday's Pro glass in terms of flare, CA and resolution,) a good body is a convenience except in a few circumstances. Today's consumer bodies have better AF and recording speed than something like the S2Pro, which made a lot of weddings, sports and fine art photographers a good bit of money when it was state of the art, and still does for those who hang on to their gear until it's dead.