$35/hour and supply your own gear? Really?

[MissionMan]

I'm not a professional photographer by any standards but I'm fortunate enough to have a full time job that helps sponsor my hobby. I was trawling through seek.com.au the other day (I use it as a hunting ground to identify what projects are happening in our industry) and decided to do a search for photographers to see what the market was like. No intention of shifting across, pure curiosity.

One of the first ads that caught my eye was this one:

http://www.seek.com.au/Job/photographers/in/melbourne-melbourne/22592511

They're looking for a photographer, with the following equipment guidelines:


Camera Body: Nikon or Canon
Professional 500W-1000W Studio lighting
2nd Camera Body - Nikon or Canon
Pro 24 - 70mm 2.8 lens
Pro 70 - 200mm 2.8 lens
Pro 300 or 400mm 2.8 lens


So, in short, they're looking for a competent photographer (outdoor and studio experience), with about $20k+ worth of gear and they're prepared to pay the sum of $35/hour?

Is it really that bad out there? Or am I missing the point?

[kiwi]

Seems to be a rate that is often put forward, eg for contract sport or event shooters

I don't bother for that personally but plenty will

[Kym]

$20,000 worth of gear inc insurance?
divide by $35 = ~571 hours or 15 x 38 hours weeks just to recoup the gear costs.
Bah!

[norwest]

You could also be assured there'd be a very grey area in the definition of hours of work and a silk purse end product expected in a sow's ear time frame.

[kiwi]

Yes, the rate is prob shooting time only which is maybe 1/3 of total time involved in a shoot


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xxdrakexx]

O_o OMG

[kiwi]

I just got second in a quote to shoot team photos, I estimated 5 hours work , I was most expensive at $400, winner was $100 including 6 8x10's and there were 6 others between $100 and $300 !!!!

[AutumnCurl]

when deciding my hourly rate for myself for my business, i was researching, and the one i found, wanted:
10 years experience
all the equipment
a diploma or degree
retouching skills
printing experience preferred for the same amount of money!

who in the right mind would bother with that.. surely if you have those skills, your already doing what you want?

[fishographer]

Hey Guys,

I have to say that sounds a little insulting, I own my own retail business that allows for some of my photography to earn me some income, not much but enough to pay for gear and also make that gear tax deductible.....always a bonus.

However I have to pay completely unskilled adult labour a casual rate of $22.70 p/hour to stand behind a counter and punch numbers into a till (whilst maintaining a finger up their lazy ass at the same time) after about an hours worth of training just about any monkey could do it. No equipment needed nor any experience.

To think someone would expect a semi professional level of skill and experience plus top of the range equipment and be only willing to pay $35 p/hour is just plain rude. My work has been published on a regular occasion but I still wouldnt consider myself good enough to take on a professional job as a photographer for anyone, and if I do end up at that level I would demand a whole lot more than that an hour.

[norwest]

Actually, the add quotes $30 - $34.99 per hour and 'Independent Contractors'. So, the $30 - 35 has to also cover all your gear costs, personal and gear insurances plus public liability, without any employee benefits and be available all weekend and odd hours when the majority of work would be conducted.

I imagine the turnover of staff is regular and very, very fast. I never deny a proprietor or business the right to earn a quid through hard work and personal financial risk. However, if the intention is to profit through disadvantage and unfairness to others, i'd like to kick their ***** till they bled.

[Analog6]

They want creativity as well!

[MissionMan]

They want creativity as well!

You'd need to be creative to survive on that income

[norwest]

They also advertised for -

Field Manager
Immediate 10 casual positions available - Salary: $20 - $24.99 per hour
(Due to the nature of the business, this role will require mostly weekend and evening work and you must have your own car and license)

EVENTS ASSISTANTS
Immediate 10 Part time/Casual Positions available - Salary: $20 - $24.99 per hour
(The work hours will be required week nights (4pm onwards) and weekends (day time only) to service our sporting clientele.)

[Lance B]

Pay peanuts, get monkey's.

[kiwi]

The "problem" here is that there is a large number of people that would do this event on Spec

In fact, I get approached to do quite a few events and its not uncommon that they ask YOU TO PAY THEM for the priveledge of being their official photographer and the opportunity to sell to participants

HUH !!!!

[Lance B]

That's true. This would probably suit those trying to get a break in the profession and get recognised, but it could also just be a way to exploit cheap labour with their own equipment

[kiwi]

Its not really those new to the industry really, it's widely prevalent. It's desperate times out there if event or sport work is your business

[MissionMan]

Its not really those new to the industry really, it's widely prevalent. It's desperate times out there if event or sport work is your business

True, but times change and people in the market have to change or get left behind. The move from book stores to electronic devices is an example. I don't believe the solution to the ereaders is to drop their pricing to a point where they make a loss, the solution is to move with the market and provide a service that ties in with that. If the market for sports or event based work is dying, its a case of shifting your profession slightly so you can still make money by changing your strategy, rather than accepting second rate wages.

[kiwi]

Of course

Any suggestions welcome

[achee]

To me, the appeal of an hourly rate depends largely on the amount of hours on offer. It wouldn't be bad if that were full-time work. On the other extreme, if you had to turn up for one hour at a time, you'd have to be really desperate for a toe-in to do that!

[Rattus79]

Some of us work for alot less than that now. Myself included. That's why I'm on here reading this instead of "working"

See how you go living of $19/hr ....

[Warus]

Minimum wage is far less than $35 an hour and a lot of people survive on that. If you are getting $20 an hour now in a field you hated and could swap for $20 an hour in a field you enjoyed + $15 an hour towards your business expenses then you can see the appeal. As for the initial cost of the gear yes that is expensive for your business setup as with any business I guess and it needs to be accounted for in your business plan. Guess it's up to the individual but I agree thinking $35 is low pay may not entirely be true and depends on where you are sitting right now.

[ApolloLXII]

Like anything else these days, people are only prepared to pay the least amount possible to get what they want. There will always be somebody out there willing to accept $35 an hour while others will always turn up their nose because they think that they should be paid more. That's the nature of a free market which includes accepting that you get what you pay for.

[ricktas]

JUST A REMINDER:

Site rules:


Members with Under 30 day’s membership and/or 50 posts:

[3] Are not allowed to promote or complain! Promotion or complaints about services/people/organisations/products/businesses by new members is not allowed anywhere on Ausphotography. New members are also not allowed to seek/advertise employment (either paid or unpaid) anywhere on the site.


I have removed some posts from this thread as members with less that 50 posts have made complaints about gear, a company, and more.

[Warbler]

I think you should remember that $35/hr for an employee is a bit different to the same rate for an ABN-holder who has to fund their own superannuation, insurance, holidays, and equipment. I do some contract work for a sports photography outfit occasionally and they pay $50/hour and are not considered to be paying above the odds. To have that sort of equipment, though, you'd want to be pulling in lots of work.

Tim

[kiwi]

It's not $35 an hour though, that's probably not including all your time

[nwhc]

JUST A REMINDER:

Site rules:


Members with Under 30 day’s membership and/or 50 posts:

[3] Are not allowed to promote or complain! Promotion or complaints about services/people/organisations/products/businesses by new members is not allowed anywhere on Ausphotography. New members are also not allowed to seek/advertise employment (either paid or unpaid) anywhere on the site.


I have removed some posts from this thread as members with less that 50 posts have made complaints about gear, a company, and more.

Sorry that was me I thought the smiley face emphasized the sarcasm.

Still though 35 an hr for a young person who pours coffees by day but loves taking photos is good money.

With no industry body around photography and qualifications there will always be people happy to shoot for $35.

[I @ M]

Still though 35 an hr for a young person who pours coffees by day but loves taking photos is good money.

Ok, so explain to me how they got the money for 20K of gear "pouring coffees" because the way I read the ad they want a full time photographer with all the gear and plenty of idea to work for them at low rates.

Not a "coffee pourer" with no gear and no idea.

This is NOT a slight on anyone that serves coffee for a living and/or knows how to take a decent photo. I reckon good coffee makers are great :th3: and those that can take a good photo with whatever level of gear AND make good coffee are super heroes. :)

[nwhc]

I'm not going to get into an argument, I think u have underestimated how well passionate young people can save let alone older people. I will ask the young bloke tomorrow when he is making my coffe how he did aswell as the custom water housing he use.

Anyway that will do me I always hear the same thing amongst togs, that's to cheap etc but it's the sad truth anyone can go and buy the gear and call themselves a photographer.

[I @ M]

I'm not going to get into an argument, I think u have underestimated how well passionate young people can save let alone older people.

We don't have arguments here, it is a forum for exchanges on thoughts and I certainly NEVER underestimate peoples passions whether they are young or old ( I am ancient by the way :D ) but I always ask people to err on the cautious side of prostitution when it comes to getting themselves known or scoring a paying job. I would far rather see people pouring coffee for a living and making $5.00 a year from genuine opportunities than being ripped of based on their talents and gear earning $500.00.

[nwhc]

We don't have arguments here, it is a forum for exchanges on thoughts and I certainly NEVER underestimate peoples passions whether they are young or old ( I am ancient by the way :D ) but I always ask people to err on the cautious side of prostitution when it comes to getting themselves known or scoring a paying job. I would far rather see people pouring coffee for a living and making $5.00 a year from genuine opportunities than being ripped of based on their talents and gear earning $500.00.

Very true but any job no matter how small or cheap looks good on someone's portfolio when starting out.

[I @ M]

Very true but any job no matter how small or cheap looks good on someone's portfolio when starting out.

If they have both passion and talent they will be able to turn heads with the gear that they have and by being persistent in their approach to photographic opportunities. Selling themselves cheaply for some ( possible ) exposure at a bargain rate implies taking the easy way out to me and contradicts their claims of "passion", for what it is worth I have been on that side of the fence and see the inherent dangers involved to people who actually believe that they can take good photographs but who end up conforming to other peoples ( non creative ) expectations.

[Wayne]

I have all that gear required in the advertisement, and there is no way I would do the work for that given my investment.

[MissionMan]

Very true but any job no matter how small or cheap looks good on someone's portfolio when starting out.

I don't believe you need a job to put together a good portfolio. They also require studio gear and if you can put together studio gear along with the rest of the equipment list, how practical is it to sell your soul for $35/hour when you could quite easily (and more profitably) offer home shoots at more than that. Personally I'd rather advertise myself at $35/hour than subcontract myself to someone else at that rate and help give them a name.

[kiwi]

Although you have all the gear so the incremental cost of doing the job is next to zero. It's all cash in the pocket for pokies the next day ;-)

[MissionMan]

Although you have all the gear so the incremental cost of doing the job is next to zero. It's all cash in the pocket for pokies the next day ;-)

The problem with it is it's a bit of cash now but it devalues the industry as a whole. It's short term gain and long term pain. Even as a hobbyist, I would never sell my services part time like this because it's depriving someone of work and devaluing the work someone else is doing. I have an existing salary so sure I could afford to do this, but why would I want to? Yeah, I'd love to take a million dollar photo but its not my intention, but that'll be more luck than going out for paid shoots.

[norwest]

I'm not going to get into an argument, I think u have underestimated how well passionate young people can save let alone older people. I will ask the young bloke tomorrow when he is making my coffe how he did aswell as the custom water housing he use.

Anyway that will do me I always hear the same thing amongst togs, that's to cheap etc but it's the sad truth anyone can go and buy the gear and call themselves a photographer.


Why do i so often hear this type of argument aimed at those whom earn a living from the profession, from those i presume, do not? Why do i so often feel a hint of resentment?

[kiwi]

Firstly I could buy myself a scan pan, does that make me a masterchef ?

And the point is made along the way several times is that $35 is a stupid economy, you're running at a loss probably if you did the sums

But the reality is that for whatever reason when there is so little non surv work out there that these rates are now common and setting their own expectations across the board

I wouldnt do it at these rates either but could find a lot that would I bet

[sunny6teen]

accept the original rate...shoot film...then sting 'em for the printing ;)

[I @ M]

Why do i so often hear this type of argument aimed at those whom earn a living from the profession, from those i presume, do not? Why do i so often feel a hint of resentment?

Just sensitive I guess. :p

Seriously norwest, the term "profession" is so hackneyed as to be truly cringe worthy in this day and age. The only people I see using it are #1 Hard core filkr posters. #2 Hard core facebook users. #3 All the others with a "free" website and #4 those that consistently want to ram their personal greatness (achieved through doctored filter plug ins in photoshop ) down the throats of other photographers as if they were the next best thing since Pablo bloody Picasso.

[norwest]

Just sensitive I guess. :p

Seriously norwest, the term "profession" is so hackneyed as to be truly cringe worthy in this day and age. The only people I see using it are #1 Hard core filkr posters. #2 Hard core facebook users. #3 All the others with a "free" website and #4 those that consistently want to ram their personal greatness (achieved through doctored filter plug ins in photoshop ) down the throats of other photographers as if they were the next best thing since Pablo bloody Picasso.

And which do you assume i fit, I&M?
What do i call it? A trade, a job or what i do for a living? Profession is simply a term as is trade. I'll refrase my comment so as there's no confusion.

"Why do i so often hear this type of argument aimed at those whom earn a living from the job of taking photographs, from those i presume, do not? Why do i so often feel a hint of resentment? "

[I @ M]

And which do you assume i fit, I&M?
What do i call it? A trade, a job or what i do for a living? Profession is simply a term as is trade. I'll refrase my comment so as there's no confusion.



Don't get too sensitive norwest, I am not "classifying" you in any shape form or manner but the terminology used is till baffling to me.
I am definitely not assuming you ( or any other person on the forum ) fits anywhere.
Profession has always been to me associated with those who went to uni and passed many years of study at such things as dentistry, general medicine, law and so forth. Similarly, trades used to be rewarded by a certificate of practise in a particular field of work as well as education. Now once upon a time there may have been some sort of degree recognised by mainstream education related to photography but these days it seems to have disappeared.
Trades on the other hand were similarly and clearly marked. These days, once again those demarcations are eroding.
We do not have a clearly defined trade or profession of "photography" that is a government recognised degree as we do have with many other fields of endeavour.

As to your question



"Why do i so often hear this type of argument aimed at those whom earn a living from the job of taking photographs, from those i presume, do not?

It is fairly simple, those who earn 50k - 100k pa in their 5 day a week job are always happy to expand their skills on the weekends and pick up another few dollars per week and not have to worry if the kids eat or not the next week if they captured a great photo. Those however that rely on feeding the kids form the weekend shoot will probably be mortified when the "weekend shooter" earns the gig at a lower price. Problem is ---- there are absolutely NO qualifications to bias the purchasing requirements from the "pro" to the weekend shooter and if the latter produces just a good job as the "pro" at a more competitive price. Should there be bias on qualifications? Hands up those who do and do not have relevant "qualifications" and take it from there.


Why do i so often feel a hint of resentment?

Seriously, I think that the resentment you hear is purely a backlash against the so called "pros" who complain about others encroaching on their "profession" which in reality simply isn't ----

[fishographer]

To me it isn't a simple case of just a dollar figure per hour for the job, sure $35 p/h sounds a whole lot better than the $20 p/h many people survive on,but what we are really talking about here, that may be loosely referred to as "profession", is really the level of expertise and skill. To me in order to take pictures worthy of commercial value in a "professional" world for use in marketing and advertising requires a reasonably high level of expertise and for the most part include some type of formal qualification. If you look at the credentials of many "professional" photogs they will have some type of qualifications and with all that comes the expectation of a higher value in payment, you cannot in any way liken that to a relatively unskilled and unqualified position that may pay minimum wage.
For example I pay an unskilled monkey $20 p/hhour to do a reasonably easy job with minimal responsibility, when it comes to a manager I require a higher skill level, some firm of skill and experience but also a higher level of responsibility, this then costs me more like $50 p/h.
These people are advertising for the services of someone with a high level of skill and expertise, professional level equipment but are only willing to pay a low end basic rate. Clearly this is because they have priced professional services and are unwilling to accept the costs associated......they will more than likely deserve what they get.
My brothers partner is a "professional" photographer, she works for a photography business as a paid full time employee and earns $30 an hour for a 9-5 weekday job doing both retail counter work as well as studio shooting with in house equipment.
She also free lances with her own gear and when I told her about this subject she commented that it was common but in most cases the result was poor work, when she quotes for her own freelance work, home shoots, weddings ect, she bases it on a $60p/h rate for shooting and also factors in travelling, post production ect and generally gives a total price for the job. She has never been refused a job yet.

[fishographer]

I forgot to add that she also has a uni degree in graphic design and digital media.

[I @ M]

T
To me in order to take pictures worthy of commercial value in a "professional" world for use in marketing and advertising requires a reasonably high level of expertise and for the most part include some type of formal qualification. If you look at the credentials of many "professional" photogs they will have some type of qualifications and with all that comes the expectation of a higher value in payment, you cannot in any way liken that to a relatively unskilled and unqualified position that may pay minimum wage.


Sorry fishographer, I am not picking on anything you say but where do the recognised "degrees" in photography come from?



She has never been refused a job yet.

OK, she earns $30.00 an hour behind the counter and quotes at $60.00 an hour for extra curricular activities.
Either she is talented and selling herself too cheaply because she doesn't need the extra income or she is simply selling herself too cheaply.

[fishographer]

I don't understand your " selling herself too cheaply" comment.
The business she is employed at obviously takes all the risk by setting up the business, supplying a studio environment, supplies gear and equipment as well as post production and printing equipment, she is employed to do a particular job that only utilizes her skill level but without her needing to be responsible for the risk.
As for her private work she bases her fee on a basic rate for shooting, obviously if it's a quick family portrait close to home that only takes an hour or two with no post production and the supply of pictures on a disc the clearly that's all she will only charge that minimal fee however a wedding event, with traveling, set up, lots of shooting with extra gear, sometimes even hiring gear, post production and some type of presentation or printing than clearly this could all work out at well over $100p/h......like I said she will quote in a job with a total cost based on the level of work needed to be done and an estimation on time. Clearly for the most part there is a little more to it than "you bring you gear and we will pay you this much an hour" when they are expecting a high grade of work

[Art Vandelay]

There's more than a few uni students as casual pizza delivery drivers & the like out there using 20k worth of car who'd be better off out taking photos with 20k worth of gear on those contract rates. :)

People will take them up on it.

[fess67]

The truth is there is validity on both sides of the fence here.

There are many out there who will accept this type of engagement and be happy with it. Be it to break into the industry or just for the fun of doing it. Are they professionals? hmmm we have to define the term ....enough around the forums on that so not going there.

Is it good or bad for the industry? That is probably the better question.

Good in a way, we see people given a chance to participate. Bad because the guys at the top take all the money. Bad because it is not enough to live on and squeezes people who rely on that work as a main income. But, as has been mentioned in one of the posts above, people will need to adapt because this is the way the industry is going.

Let me give you an example. My wife runs a travel agency. 20 years ago people went into travel agencies and booked holidays. Now there are many options to buy on the web. Does she moan about the web operators? Hell yeah!!! But she also works a way to stay in the game - funny enough many of the clients that migrated to the web are now coming back because they want quality advice not just to purchase something.

Quality will always shine through so strive to be as good as you can be.

[kiwi]

Just for a bit of a giggle, a widely understood baseline rate to run a profitable photography business based on an hourly rate (while shooting) is $100 per hour




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fishographer]

True that Art, true that, I knew a few from my uni days with "bachelor of arts" degrees that ended up stacking shelves in super markets, mind you I did plenty of that in my early days too, builds character :)
After all my years in business though I have learnt one valuable lesson regardless of the industry, if you want quality work or services it will cost you a premium simple as that :)

[norwest]

Don't get too sensitive norwest, I am not "classifying" you in any shape form or manner but the terminology used is till baffling to me.
I am definitely not assuming you ( or any other person on the forum ) fits anywhere.

With respect IM, your statement of 'The only people I see using it are', explained in four categories, left no options available to think otherwise. There is no exclusion option # 5.


Seriously norwest, the term "profession" is so hackneyed as to be truly cringe worthy in this day and age. The only people I see using it are #1 Hard core filkr posters. #2 Hard core facebook users. #3 All the others with a "free" website and #4 those that consistently want to ram their personal greatness (achieved through doctored filter plug ins in photoshop ) down the throats of other photographers as if they were the next best thing since Pablo bloody Picasso.

[zollo]

So much of this thread is just an opinion and not based on current reality, that it should be quoted as such, sorry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[reaction]

Trying to sidestep the usual tempers and arguments, it would really interest me to know how many replies this company got, compared to other similar ads.

To me it sounds like a temp job, where you'd get a call on a Thurs avo at 2pm to come around for 'about an hour' shoot at 5pm, bring all your gear.
If so it would be hard to recover just expenses (travel, gear insurance)

I see nowhere to suggest it's a 9-5 job or even a guarantee of 30hrs paid work/wk, so it's useless to compare with $10 flipping burger jobs which have fixed times.

[para]

I just got second in a quote to shoot team photos, I estimated 5 hours work , I was most expensive at $400, winner was $100 including 6 8x10's and there were 6 others between $100 and $300 !!!!
That is ridiculous by the time you go to the event fuel etc $100 not worth it just covering costs