Calculate your hourly rate

[ricktas]

Though not specifically designed for photography, here is a little calculator that can help you understand all the elements to consider when working out a rate to charge. I hope that even if it doesn't give you a workable rate, that it makes you think about all the aspects of what should be incorporated and considered when working out how much to charge.

http://freelanceswitch.com/rates/

[kiwi]

Doesn't apply if you are a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

Doesn't apply if you are a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not? You could still do some calculations and at least it would make you think about the components that make up what you should charge.

[kiwi]

To what end ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[farmer_rob]

Come on Kiwi, you're saying a hobbyist shouldn't charge for his/her photos. Why?

If you are going to charge for photos, this gives you a rough idea of how much it costs you to take them.

[kiwi]

No, I'm saying charge what you think your photos are worth, as a hobbyist the costs are irrelevent as you'd likely do for free largely anyway, you're not running a p&l, paying tax, declaring expenses etc

If you are a pro you need to know obviously, but not as a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

No, I'm saying charge what you think your photos are worth, as a hobbyist the costs are irrelevent as you'd likely do for free largely anyway, you're not running a p&l, paying tax, declaring expenses etc

If you are a pro you need to know obviously, but not as a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but why should a good hobbyist (semi pro) not use a similar method to calculate their rates? If I employ two staff who both do the same job, one full time and one part time, I would generally pay them the same hourly rate, if they are doing the same job.

[CherylB]

Not only what Rick said Darren, but there have also been plenty of discussions about "hobbyists" devaluing the profession in general. Yes, there are probably always going to be the low end hobbyists who charge peanuts and deliver .... ummm .... less than exemplary results. However, for the serious hobbyist who is also a pretty good photographer, why should they devalue their time and effort simply because they're not looking to make a profit?

Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!

[farmer_rob]

...
Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!

Taking the site rule about "not giving advice" into consideration, and offering the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer or an accountant, I think you'll find that hobby-related returns are not always treated as income and hence don't always have to be declared. This comes up quite a bit with horse racing and breeding - the tax office are very resistant to hobby breeders managing to declare themselves as professional breeders: the tax on the occasional windfall profit is far exceeded by the potential for offsettable losses, and so the tax office see a net benefit in not having hobbyists declare hobby income. (There are a lot of benefits about being able to convince the tax office that you are professional - the costs of achieving that income become relevant. Think of the photography kit you could buy and write off against your tax - even just the GST.)

As usual, consult an accountant or lawyer in real life (not the internet) before undertaking any action with relation to what is taxable income and claims.

Addenda: Sites such as the one Rick pointed to here add real value to this: If you can establish that it costs you $10,000 a year to take photographs, and you can sell $15,000 a year of photographs (I know, in your dreams), you start to have a business case to move away from being a hobbyist.

[kiwi]

but why should a good hobbyist (semi pro) not use a similar method to calculate their rates? If I employ two staff who both do the same job, one full time and one part time, I would generally pay them the same hourly rate, if they are doing the same job.


Would they work just for fun though?

Either of them ?

Do you take photos for fun or to charge ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kiwi]

Not only what Rick said Darren, but there have also been plenty of discussions about "hobbyists" devaluing the profession in general. Yes, there are probably always going to be the low end hobbyists who charge peanuts and deliver .... ummm .... less than exemplary results. However, for the serious hobbyist who is also a pretty good photographer, why should they devalue their time and effort simply because they're not looking to make a profit?

Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!

It's too late and too little to reverse the tide of hobbyists taking work from pros by undercutting

The question is should you care ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kiwi]

Not only what Rick said Darren, but there have also been plenty of discussions about "hobbyists" devaluing the profession in general. Yes, there are probably always going to be the low end hobbyists who charge peanuts and deliver .... ummm .... less than exemplary results. However, for the serious hobbyist who is also a pretty good photographer, why should they devalue their time and effort simply because they're not looking to make a profit?

Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!


Oh, unless you earn at least $20000 income there is no need or point in declaring photography related income, it's a hobby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dowden photography]

Was reading somewhere the other day that the hourly rate works out to be $846 for a days work (7 hours - 1 hour free).

[Steve Axford]

I agree with Kiwi. If I want to give away my work, I have every right to do so. I take photos because I love to do so, not because I want to make a living from them (there are much better ways of doing that anyway). I may eventually find a way of making good money from photography, but I suspect that it will be quite different from the "charge for time" method. The only value for this type of calculation is for people who really do want to make a living from photography and who need to streamline their operation. This would allow them to focus on the big time consuming items and try to reduce them.

[kiwi]

Oh, I didn't say that you should work for free. Just that comparing what a hobbyist should charge based on s per hour profitability calc is not what I think appropriate for most

Damned fine discussion. Some big issues at play here

I have tried to levy industry rates, but constantly wonder why I should even try when so many don't and who really cares ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James T]

Semi-pro and hobbyist are two different people I thought.

And I agree, charge whatever you want. Far too many 'photographers' online whinging about being driven out of a job (not aimed at anyone here, just related to what's being said). Get over it.

No-one has a 'God given right' for want of a better term, to make a living from photography. You can't just decide you're a photographer, and if it doesn't work then the hobbyists are to blame. You have to earn it, just like anything else. If you can't make a living doing what you did 10 years ago, it's probably time you bucked up your ideas and got on with something else. /end rant.

[Steve Axford]

I didn't mean that I would work for free, just that it is my right to do so if I wish. If someone wants to use a photo for a good cause and can't afford to pay, then I usually allow it. If someone wants to use a photo in a profit making enterprise, then I will charge. If someone wants to use a photo for something that I'm unsure of (ethically), then I will ask for a lot.

[maccaroneski]

If someone wants to use a photo for something that I'm unsure of (ethically), then I will ask for a lot.

Interesting. Every man has his price, eh?

[Steve Axford]

If someone asks to use a photo that I am sure I don't like ethically, then I say "no thankyou".

If they then offer me one million dollars - I may review my ethics to see how much I am against it. I may still refuse, but I amy not.

[ricktas]

Ah Kiwi, you posted the exact same link in this thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=54451) a while ago. I find it highly amusing that you post it and its a worthwhile tool, someone else posts it and you question its validity.

[Gavvvvvin]

How can you factor your personal costs into how much you charge? Shouldnt your personal expenditure be determined by how much you earn, not vice versa? If I decide to have two Ferraris parked in the garage does that somehow make my work worth more than the guy who drives some bomb? Ridiculous, unethical way to develop a pricing structure.

[JM Tran]

I think some ppl are taking this calculator a little bit tooooo seriously. My god its just a rough rough calculator to give you a ROUGH idea.

Please dont let it run your life from now, its not a Scientologist calculator!

[kiwi]

Ah Kiwi, you posted the exact same link in this thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=54451) a while ago. I find it highly amusing that you post it and its a worthwhile tool, someone else posts it and you question its validity.

Its totally valid if you are considering being a FT Pro.

How valid is it you you are a hobbyist is all I am saying

And yes JM, it's only home economic 101

[kiwi]

How can you factor your personal costs into how much you charge? Shouldnt your personal expenditure be determined by how much you earn, not vice versa? If I decide to have two Ferraris parked in the garage does that somehow make my work worth more than the guy who drives some bomb? Ridiculous, unethical way to develop a pricing structure.

yes, where what you are selling is you and your image

[ving]

ahh mr tran, you have hit the nail on the head :)

[Longshots]

Oh, unless you earn at least $20000 income there is no need or point in declaring photography related income, it's a hobby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


NOT happy Jan !


Have you actually spoken to an accountant on this issue Kiwi ? Because I think you'll find that any income is declarable, and they dont give a rats if you think its a hobby, if you're charging then they want their cut.

And to be utterly honest its this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography, and a dam silly one at that ! Sure you may be lucky or talented enough to have a full time job that allows you to earn enough to then also shoot and gain work normally taken by professionals that you then can then choose to shoot and seriously undercut those depending on that as a living. And let me second guess you here, but before you say that you are just a hobbyist, you actively market towards covering sporting events to an "international level" ? Not really just a hobby ! So perhaps even if you think you're right here, perhaps you should take a little more consideration of those photographers who do have to consider all costs before working out there charges as opposed to simply saying that you dont care about these things?

[kiwi]

Yes I have actually William. A tax accountant. Im one too although not a tax specialist.

Re what I charge, as far as I know ive charged market rates, or got paid market rates for someone with my experience.

Re the hobby angle, well, it's a point of interest I am raising, I know its a big issue for the industry.

As a part timer, that tries to earn income, it would be very easy to not charge or not charge a "going rate" whatever that might be becuase as you say it's not my 9-5 job that I do get paid for and my pay supports my camera hobby, not the photography related income

Im not sure whether charging market rates is appropriate as then you are a part-timer competing with a full-timer and should be outgunned on professionalism and quality. Is it ? Im really interested in your view on the industry and where it's going in this regard.

Id like to do the "right thing" whatever that is. I didnt say I didnt care, I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Axford]

NOT happy Jan !


Have you actually spoken to an accountant on this issue Kiwi ? Because I think you'll find that any income is declarable, and they dont give a rats if you think its a hobby, if you're charging then they want their cut.

And to be utterly honest its this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography, and a dam silly one at that ! Sure you may be lucky or talented enough to have a full time job that allows you to earn enough to then also shoot and gain work normally taken by professionals that you then can then choose to shoot and seriously undercut those depending on that as a living. And let me second guess you here, but before you say that you are just a hobbyist, you actively market towards covering sporting events to an "international level" ? Not really just a hobby ! So perhaps even if you think you're right here, perhaps you should take a little more consideration of those photographers who do have to consider all costs before working out there charges as opposed to simply saying that you dont care about these things?

I agree that Kiwi is wrong about being able to earn $20,000 without paying tax, but I don't agree that "this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography". Do you really expect everyone to stop and ask if someone is making money from what they do for free? And then to refrain from doing it just because someone is making money from it? Even the professions like law and medicine have had to change to suit modern demands, so why think that photography, which unlike law or medicine has no legal protection, should be any different? You can't turn the clock back to the 1950's, and why would you want to?

[kiwi]

It wouldn't be me that would be wrong, it would be two independent tax accountants. I wanted to be a business so I could claim expenses etc

There are a number of tests applied to whether you are a hobby or a business, the 20000 figure I was told was one main measure the ato used to determine this - not published but Is in rulings

Anyway, this is second hand information so seek your own advice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Karl]

The thing is everything has a cost and regardless of whether you are a pro or a hobbyist or whatever, every time you pick up your camera and walk out the door you are incuring a cost to yourself.

So if you get a chance to recover those costs then why not do it in a professional maner and take into considerations all the costs that it cost you to take that picture. Costs include, time, fuel, where and tear of your motr vehicle, entrance fees, food etc.

At the end of the day a hobbyist will sell the phot at whatever price he/she wants but then they have made a concious decision to make a loss.

I have had three articles and photos published in a national magazine and I was paid $50 per article. I estimates that it took me over ten hours of work to produce each article so I was paid at $5 per hour. But I did it because of the type of magazine (it's a free industry based one) and it gives me exposure and experience for when I get to the next level and get published in a glossy mag.

Once I get to that level - even as a hobbyist - I wont be working for $5 an hour and I will ensure that my costs are covered.

Karl

[kiwi]

Karl,

Dont you think though that once you have a reputation as a $5 per hour photographer, or for free, that it's likely to stick with you, at least with that publication ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkChap]

I really didn't read it as Darren saying that you didn't have to pay tax until you earned $20 000.00.

I read to mean that you weren't classed as a business, you were classed as a hobbyist by the tax office, and as such couldn't take advantage of the deductions available to a business that would then reduce the amount of tax that you paid.

That's the way I read it any way

[kiwi]

I really didn't read it as Darren saying that you didn't have to pay tax until you earned $20 000.00.

I read to mean that you weren't classed as a business, you were classed as a hobbyist by the tax office, and as such couldn't take advantage of the deductions available to a business that would then reduce the amount of tax that you paid.

That's the way I read it any way

No, my advice was that there was no requirement to declare the income. If you were to declare the income then of course you could offset expenses.

Once again, my personal circumstances and advice is only mine. Talk to a tax accountant or ato regarding your own circumstances



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[farmer_rob]

No, my advice was that there was no requirement to declare the income. If you were to declare the income then of course you could offset expenses.

Once again, my personal circumstances and advice is only mine. Talk to a tax accountant or ato regarding your own circumstances



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are rulings around concerning thoroughbred breeding in the context of hobby vs business (and this is an industry where a yearling can sell for $1m) - I can't remember the details, but it revolves around proving you are a business. This can include a business plan, a significant proportion of of personal income being derived from the business, employing others, a business name, premises. Although I have no problem proving that we are a cattle business, our horse breeding is still treated as a hobby - in spite of receiving over $60k for horses sold (you don't want to know about the costs though :o) I'd expect proving you have a photography business has parallel requirements.

As kiwi says, talk to an accountant - but kiwi's $20k seems a viable benchmark. Remember, this is billings - it is NOT earnings, as costs have not been taken into account. (Now, this gives me an idea ... a photography tax dodge managed investment scheme for high earners. Who wants a D3x for their holiday snaps... 49% off... :th3:)

The hobbyist issue here is not about "devaluing the industry" or "stealing from professionals" (or even "tax evasion") - it is straight (or arguably convoluted) accountancy and tax law that applies across a range of industries. Don't confuse the ATO's view of "hobbyist", be it photographer, horse breeder or whatever who still sells things deliberately, and the more generic hobbyist or amateur who does it for fun, and a sale is a bonus.

The issue that the photography industry has to face up to the fact that it has low barriers to entry and a lot of willing participants. If some of those competitors are "hobbyists" (in an amateur sense), the "professionals" will have to recognise that there is more than providing an image, and instead start to provide what "hobbyists" can't - professionalism, reliability, consistency, attention to detail, marketing - and work at retaining their clientele.

[FallingHorse]

Taking the site rule about "not giving advice" into consideration, and offering the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer or an accountant, I think you'll find that hobby-related returns are not always treated as income and hence don't always have to be declared. This comes up quite a bit with horse racing and breeding - the tax office are very resistant to hobby breeders managing to declare themselves as professional breeders: the tax on the occasional windfall profit is far exceeded by the potential for offsettable losses, and so the tax office see a net benefit in not having hobbyists declare hobby income. (There are a lot of benefits about being able to convince the tax office that you are professional - the costs of achieving that income become relevant. Think of the photography kit you could buy and write off against your tax - even just the GST.)

As usual, consult an accountant or lawyer in real life (not the internet) before undertaking any action with relation to what is taxable income and claims.

.

I am pretty sure you can make upto 18K a year on a hobby before having to declare it - we breed cattle as a 'hobby' ... once again check with your relevant tax specialist :)

[Longshots]

I agree that Kiwi is wrong about being able to earn $20,000 without paying tax, but I don't agree that "this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography". Do you really expect everyone to stop and ask if someone is making money from what they do for free? And then to refrain from doing it just because someone is making money from it? Even the professions like law and medicine have had to change to suit modern demands, so why think that photography, which unlike law or medicine has no legal protection, should be any different? You can't turn the clock back to the 1950's, and why would you want to?


Dont misunderstand me, I'm not asking for anything. Simply put, in my world, if you're a hobbyist, you're not charging. If you charge you're in business. It makes no difference if you're making a profit or making a loss. Any income is meant to be declared, and after 38 years of declaring my income, and having a variety of jobs, careers and multi careers, I dont need a couple of ten accountants to point out what is obvious to most.

What I meant about the costs Steve, was that you're right there is a difference between someone doing something for free and someone doing it for a charge, but if you intend to emulate those who're doing it for a charge, then its wise to understand the true costs of being in business. Isnt that what this topic was about.

And there is no need to discuss or debate turning the clock back, as there have been decades of hobbyist photographers doing something for free or at a much lower cost than the professional who is having to charge a rate to make a living from the profession of photography. Its something I tackled from the other side of the fence about 30 years ago. It seems to me that its fairly easy to get yourself published. Even easier to chuck up a website without too much of an outlay, have a mobile number no other contact details and claim that you're in business without even going to the trouble of the costs and outlay of a normal business. But its another matter to make a business out of it where you can not only cover the costs of your gear, but tax, insurance, public liability, and support your family (and I dont expect anyone to cover those costs, but pointing out that it can be done), so its worthwhile reading the information originally offered. That was my point.

And if you go back to the original topic headline and content, this subject was all about the working out the true costs of being in business. So those who market, and this is my particular bone of contention, where they have a clearly seperate business, and who are charging, however uneconomically, then they, according to the ATO's website, have to declare all income.


BTW just read Rob's excellent response. I agree with you entirely and your last sentence is exactly what does differentiate the pro from the hobbyist. But be aware that few photographers with websites, state their position and its up to the client to find out how to differentiate between the two.

[Karl]

Karl,

Dont you think though that once you have a reputation as a $5 per hour photographer, or for free, that it's likely to stick with you, at least with that publication ?

No not really in this case. This magazine is owned by a much larger publishing company and they use it to give a 'spring board' into their industry. By submitting articles / photos into their free mag they work with you to develop your style and because it is an industry free magazine it is accepted that some of the articles may not be up to the higher standard.

Once you reach certain levels they move the bar. In my case they have asked me to continue to submitt articles as well as submitting a portfolio of my photos. If I decide to continue to improve my style of writing the next step is that they ask you to become a contributor to their glossy mags.

Everyone has to start somewhere and for me this is a good way to get into the industry - especially these days as there are so many people with cameras taking photos, but there aren't as many that can take a photo and put words with them and produce an article that people enjoy reading especially one without all the cliches etc. Also it gets me known out there in scuba diving circles as well and I can put it on my resume etc.

Very few people get articles published in big mags the first time around - same as photos and it take work, but you should never under sell yourself.

BTW - the photos I put with my articles for this mag are basic but reasonable quality once I get into the glossy mag then I will be submitting higher quality photos :th3::th3:

Karl

[Steve Axford]

It wouldn't be me that would be wrong, it would be two independent tax accountants. I wanted to be a business so I could claim expenses etc

There are a number of tests applied to whether you are a hobby or a business, the 20000 figure I was told was one main measure the ato used to determine this - not published but Is in rulings

Anyway, this is second hand information so seek your own advice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the tax man might view it that you are wrong, Kiwi. I suggest you don't try it..

I think you are confusing the $20,000 profit you need to make to share your expenses with your primary income. That's very different from being able to make $20,000 income without paying tax.

Many hobby farmers used to do this up here. Buy a macadamia farm, use all the expenses as a loss against your tax (from being a doctor or whatever), make a small profit and a large capital gain on the farm. Great while it lasted. Then the tax man said, no no no. You have to make $20,000 profit on your hobby farm (or whatever) before you can claim the farm expenses against your primary income. Almost no hobby farmer does that, so bye bye loophole. Exactly the same applies to photographers, but you still have to declare the income you make and I assume you can claim your photography expenses against your photography income.

Of course, like you, I'm not a tax agent so you must do your own checking.

[etherial]

There are rulings around concerning thoroughbred breeding in the context of hobby vs business (and this is an industry where a yearling can sell for $1m) - I can't remember the details, but it revolves around proving you are a business. This can include a business plan, a significant proportion of of personal income being derived from the business, employing others, a business name, premises. Although I have no problem proving that we are a cattle business, our horse breeding is still treated as a hobby - in spite of receiving over $60k for horses sold (you don't want to know about the costs though :o) I'd expect proving you have a photography business has parallel requirements.

As kiwi says, talk to an accountant - but kiwi's $20k seems a viable benchmark. Remember, this is billings - it is NOT earnings, as costs have not been taken into account. (Now, this gives me an idea ... a photography tax dodge managed investment scheme for high earners. Who wants a D3x for their holiday snaps... 49% off... :th3:)

The hobbyist issue here is not about "devaluing the industry" or "stealing from professionals" (or even "tax evasion") - it is straight (or arguably convoluted) accountancy and tax law that applies across a range of industries. Don't confuse the ATO's view of "hobbyist", be it photographer, horse breeder or whatever who still sells things deliberately, and the more generic hobbyist or amateur who does it for fun, and a sale is a bonus.

The issue that the photography industry has to face up to the fact that it has low barriers to entry and a lot of willing participants. If some of those competitors are "hobbyists" (in an amateur sense), the "professionals" will have to recognise that there is more than providing an image, and instead start to provide what "hobbyists" can't - professionalism, reliability, consistency, attention to detail, marketing - and work at retaining their clientele.

I agree 100% with this. I am in the hobby/business/sport of breeding pedigree dogs. Same situation as the horses really and I have looked into the tax requirements and the tax office 'rulings' and other guidance said that it is basically optional for us. I know plenty of people that run their breeding as a business, but I can't imagine why you would want to go through all the rubbish that goes with running a business unless you really had to. I seem to recall there were rulings around profit...ie a guidance was that you should reasonably expect to make a profit for 3 out of every 5 years or something to that effect. At the end of the day you need to be making a lot of profit (not just takings) to interest the tax man.

[etherial]

Dont misunderstand me, I'm not asking for anything. Simply put, in my world, if you're a hobbyist, you're not charging. If you charge you're in business. It makes no difference if you're making a profit or making a loss.

Couldn't disagree more with that statement. Just because you receive reward whether it be money or otherwise does not mean you are in business. Gee we're about to sell our baby gear, doesn't mean I'm in business!


On the issue of hobbyists taking business from pro's. That is the world we live in. I am very much a hobbyist but I will charge for my work. Photography is no different to any other service. People will pay according to their requirements or expectations. I might pay the kid down the road a few bucks to mow my grass, you might pay Jims mowing more for a professional job. The issue of a hobbyist marketing themselves to shoot weddings for example comes down to the customer. As with anything it is buyer beware!

[Longshots]

Couldn't disagree more with that statement. Just because you receive reward whether it be money or otherwise does not mean you are in business. Gee we're about to sell our baby gear, doesn't mean I'm in business!


On the issue of hobbyists taking business from pro's. That is the world we live in. I am very much a hobbyist but I will charge for my work. Photography is no different to any other service. People will pay according to their requirements or expectations. I might pay the kid down the road a few bucks to mow my grass, you might pay Jims mowing more for a professional job. The issue of a hobbyist marketing themselves to shoot weddings for example comes down to the customer. As with anything it is buyer beware!

You're welcome to disagree.

And although I wouldnt disagree with your baby gear analogy, if you were doing it on an ongoing basis, and marketing it as a business with a proper business name and website, then I think you would be in a business. If you have a website offering services and offering them for sale on an ongoing basis, then you will generally find, that you would be presenting yourself as "in business". But back to the actual topic, I was of course specifically referring to the statement that I made made earlier, and before it is quoted out of context again, it was originally posted in response to Kiwi's first reply to this topic, that he was just a hobbyist and none of this applied to him, and I would suggest you read it all before quoting out of context, and yes I am in particular taking him as an example, and referring to his website, a company name, and yes an ABN number - not really representing a hobbyist - surely ?

http://www.peakactionimages.com/

Its nothing personal btw as I know Darren reasonably well. But I cant agree with his comments, where he would appear to be suggesting that he's just a hobbyist, when I read his website and note that he's the official photographer for Qld Corporate Games, that he has a price list listed, that he has a very respectable hourly rate, etc, etc, etc, etc. I have no problem with it, in fact bloody good luck to him; I just dont think thats a hobbyist - just my opinion. This is not what I would expect someone to have when suggesting that a hobbyist, does not require to follow any suggested calculations on working out their hourly rates, and that any reference to declaring income is deemed unnecessary.

Perhaps its easier to dispense with numerous additional analogies and stick to the original topic though ?

And FWIW I've not said that hobbyists are taking work from pros. In fact I dont believe anyone has said that. What I probably did say is that its fairly easy to do things at a knock down price if you're not having to put it into a proper economic business situation. Which is how I started as well. The post offered by Rick is meant to be of some help. Which is what I'm supporting :)

[Longshots]

The thing is everything has a cost and regardless of whether you are a pro or a hobbyist or whatever, every time you pick up your camera and walk out the door you are incuring a cost to yourself.

So if you get a chance to recover those costs then why not do it in a professional maner and take into considerations all the costs that it cost you to take that picture. Costs include, time, fuel, where and tear of your motr vehicle, entrance fees, food etc.

At the end of the day a hobbyist will sell the phot at whatever price he/she wants but then they have made a concious decision to make a loss.

I have had three articles and photos published in a national magazine and I was paid $50 per article. I estimates that it took me over ten hours of work to produce each article so I was paid at $5 per hour. But I did it because of the type of magazine (it's a free industry based one) and it gives me exposure and experience for when I get to the next level and get published in a glossy mag.

Once I get to that level - even as a hobbyist - I wont be working for $5 an hour and I will ensure that my costs are covered.

Karl

Plus I think this comment is the most nail on the head of the topic - which is how to calculate your costs :)

[etherial]

And to be utterly honest its this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography, and a dam silly one at that ! Sure you may be lucky or talented enough to have a full time job that allows you to earn enough to then also shoot and gain work normally taken by professionals that you then can then choose to shoot and seriously undercut those depending on that as a living. And let me second guess you here, but before you say that you are just a hobbyist, you actively market towards covering sporting events to an "international level" ? Not really just a hobby ! So perhaps even if you think you're right here, perhaps you should take a little more consideration of those photographers who do have to consider all costs before working out there charges as opposed to simply saying that you dont care about these things?

I took it from this quote that you have a real problem with hobbyists taking work from pro's. Did I read it wrong?

I agree with most of your statements in your last post. But at the end of the day, the point I was trying to make is that there will be a range of people of different skill levels offering their services. Whether you say they are 'in business' or 'hobbyists' is irrelevent. I support the original post as some people at many levels might get some value out of it.

At the end of the day it is the customer and their needs that dicates the market.

[Longshots]

I took it from this quote that you have a real problem with hobbyists taking work from pro's. Did I read it wrong?

I agree with most of your statements in your last post. But at the end of the day, the point I was trying to make is that there will be a range of people of different skill levels offering their services. Whether you say they are 'in business' or 'hobbyists' is irrelevent. I support the original post as some people at many levels might get some value out of it.

At the end of the day it is the customer and their needs that dicates the market.

To answer your first question - Did you read it wrong ? Yes you did.

I completely agree with you on different levels, and I agree, (as I should as having remained in business in photography for over a few decades ) that customers dictate the market.

But thats not the topic and nor is that a point of debate. The point of debate is that even a sensible person should understand what their costs would be in selling something even part time, on an ongoing basis. That's just common sense. Which is why I supported Ricks post.

As I said to Rick, I started part time. I found I could easily sell my photography. Why ? Two reasons, I entered a very specialised field, of ballet photography, because that's what I was trained as (a professional ballet dancer, with a 17 year career in a top European Ballet company that toured the world). So shooting dance, was something I already understood. Selling it was dead easy, because I was virtually giving it away. Until I realised that I could not afford to subsidise my photography with my income (not very well paid btw) as a dancer. So, in my mind, and in my financial dealings, I seperated the two incomes and charged a rate for my photography which would at least cover my costs, include the additional costs that the photography business required, and that enabled me to reinvest all of my photography income into further photographic investments. It was a business, because I charged for it. It was not a hobby. That was and is my point. And as far as the ATO and UK Tax people are concerned, all income is declarable - simple.

So I was, and am still demonstrating that IMHO working out your costs is relevant. I was fortunate enough to found a niche in the photographic market, and although this was all well before digital, there was plenty of hobbyists and professionals interested in the same field of dance photography. I would often be commissioned to shoot a production - (final dress rehearsal would be the night before) and find myself competing with photographers who were there just for the fun (hobbyists if you like ?) and I would have to often process 40 rolls of film per production, produce proof sheets, and produce 100's of 10 x 8 prints (all traditional process - wet darkroom), and have them back to the company in time for the opening night the next day. Plenty of people were trying to beat me at the game, without the commissioning fee, and happy to produce their prints for free. I met the market by simply doing it better and quicker.

So I have nothing against the hobbyist, as thats how I started. I do think that its important for people to realise though, that in the business world, or as a "hobbyist" that sells their work, that its important to understand the value of what you're providing.

BTW For the record, I completely agree with you that the difference between in business and hobbyist is irrelevant, and if you'd been following this topic from the beginning and read everything I said, I didnt make the difference between being in business or being a hobbyist; that was Kiwi. I have said al along, that if you are charging for your photography, that understanding what you should be charging and what should be included is totally relevant, irrespective of level of interest.

[etherial]

I'm glad we got that sorted out! Good robust discussion peeps!

[farmer_rob]

... I do think that its important for people to realise though, that in the business world, or as a "hobbyist" that sells their work, that its important to understand the value of what you're providing....

I know it is verging slightly off topic, but value and cost are related but not the same. I'd argue that value is measured by the utility that the purchaser gets from the product, whereas cost is what you need to exceed in you billing if you are going to make money.

[Longshots]

Value was probably not a good choice of words. And I'd agree completely with your comments. So "costs" is what I should have said.


Because that (your value) is definitely the next step, and ultimately impossible to determine (purely referring to the subjective and creative role of photography and its huge extent).

[dowden photography]

At uni a few weeks ago we had in a working photographer who shoots pretty much for the big magazines. She started to talk about houly rates and what a photographer should charge and what you should give up.

Firstly she said there is a guide out there. Now I can't remember the book she got this out of but its an artiest guide and talked about what you should charge for each service.

Now if you are working for yourself you must take into account your costs, giving up your time for your service, your PP, your work and that you've got to do your own bookkeeping (the only triple double letter).
The guide said that $846 for a days work is the base rate. Thats 7 hours of work plus an extra hour free.
That comes to $120.85 an hour.
It also said to charge in 2 hour, half day, full day rates.
Remember if a news paper calls you to get "that photo" for that story you must think about getting there, setting up, waiting in some cases and then sending the files off. It's not just 5 minutes worth of work. So charge for 2 hours.

She also said beware of under cutters.
Back a few years ago when it was film or dslr's cost $1000's for the based one no one undercut anyone. Now anyone with a camera thinks they're a photographer and they will undercut you. You might have had a job shooting a gig for 3 years but a hobby photographer comes along and says they'll do i for $50 cheaper you will lose out.
I've seen it in local football in Victoria.

Luckly most major news outlets will only take you on as a paid photographer if you've had formal training, more studio's and companies are doing the same. I know of wedding planers in Melbourne that will only recomend the same. So the johnny come lately's will find it harder to get work.

I think if you start around $120.85 an hour you won't step on any toes by undercutting and your costs will be well covered.

[kiwi]

I think of you look I actually fail ato's definition of a business on a number of points

This definition if business is only ato's

Does not mean that I try to run peak action images as a business with professional standards

None the less, I will talk to my tax accountant again this week and get some more data from the ato


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Longshots]

I think of you look I actually fail ato's definition of a business on a number of points

This definition if business is only ato's

Does not mean that I try to run peak action images as a business with professional standards

None the less, I will talk to my tax accountant again this week and get some more data from the ato


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Darren you do make me smile. If you think you fail ato's definition etc, then why do you quote an ABN (Australian Business Number) on your Peak Action website ?

And check the ATO site, its fairly clear on the declarable income situation ;)

[kiwi]

Im glad Im diverting gour attention away from your sore foot

I'll refer to this

http://www.ato.gov.au/youth/content.asp?doc=/content/66884.htm

My accountant considers me a hobby. What more can I say.

Re the ABN, it has nothing to do with business/tax - you can get trade discounts etc:)

[Longshots]

sorry posted twice

[Longshots]

yes it is diverting my attention away :)

You have to speak to your accountant then because no matter how you want to describe it an ABN number Darren is a business number, which you are displaying in relation to your photography. And to repeat, that all income is declarable, with the exceptions listed on the ATO site, where there is no mention whatsoever of income derived from a hobby as being exempt.

And one reason I'm persevering the advice Darren is that I went through exactly the same process.

And yes I read that link from the ATO ? Did you - if you did, you wouldnt be thinking that you're not.

[farmer_rob]

Quoting from the ATO site (here (http://www.ato.gov.au/youth/content.asp?doc=/content/66884.htm)):


If your activity constitutes a hobby or recreation:

* any money you earn from this activity is generally not assessable income
* you are not entitled to claim tax deductions for any expenses you incur in carrying out this activity, and
* if your activity results in a loss, you are not entitled to offset this loss against other income or carry the loss forward.

and here (http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00199712.htm)

If you’re in business:

* money earned from the activity is generally assessable income
* you are generally entitled to deduct expenses incurred in earning this income, and
* if the activity results in a loss, you may be entitled to offset the loss against other income or carry it forward to offset against future income.

If your activities are classified as a hobby or recreational activity then the above points do not apply.


It is pretty clear to me that hobby returns are not assessable income, which is a contradiction (depending on the semantics of income vs assessable income vs declarable income) of


...And to repeat, that all income is declarable, with the exceptions listed on the ATO site, where there is no mention whatsoever of income derived from a hobby as being exempt...

It seems to me that the view "consult an accountant, because your individual circumstances may vary" applies in spades here. Just because you (longshots) have an accountant that advises you to treat your photography as a business and someone else (kiwi) has an accountant that advises the opposite is not contradictory: individual circumstances vary, and to expect other's circumstances to be the same as yours is misguided.

The ABN on the surface is a slightly different matter, but still not contradicted by the above - individual circumstances vary, and advice received for your circumstances only apply to your circumstances, not kiwi's - and vice versa.

So, can everyone stop trying to a) suggest that all money received must be declared to the ATO, as the ATO's site - as linked above - suggests otherwise, b) recognise that what applies to one person's photography billings does not always apply to another's and c) recognise that individual advice is just that - advice to individuals.

I'd say go and take photo's but it's dark.

[kiwi]

...besides...I have already taken 971 photos today

[peterking]

Rick.
Thanks for the link. It's interesting and whilst I won't use it now, as it is not appropriate to me as I'm not selling any images, it is something I will keep in mind.
Kiwi.
Well! What a lot of WHATS WITH THE ATTITUDE????
The link was offered as a point to consider and as a tool for use.
View it in that light.

[kiwi]

Yeah, I know, I posted it awhile ago recall.

[Longshots]

My accountant considers me a hobby. What more can I say.

Re the ABN, it has nothing to do with business/tax - you can get trade discounts etc:)


Robs advice is great. Definitely a case of individual assesment. I would be interested in what you're advised, and will out of sheer curiosity check with my own - again.

However, quoting a an ABN, and then saying it has nothing to do with business, but you can get "trade discounts", is simply a bizarre statement. Its an Australian Business Number ! If you're not in business, then why do you quote it ?

[kiwi]

I am in business, but not according to the ato's definition. I similarly dont see why that's so hard to understand

I'm not a professional by Nikon's definition either

I say we desist as my circumstances are mine, and I'll take my own accountant's advice on this. He's the professional after all.

[Longshots]

Doesn't apply if you are a hobbyist



Well to take it back to why I responded, this was all about hourly rates, and you said it didnt apply to you because you were a hobbyist, and then you have confused me further by saying that you're not in business, and now that you are in business :) Clearly there is plenty of confusion.

The original post about how to calculate your hourly rates is, (which was my point when supporting Ricks post/link), is relevant to all, contrary to your view.

And the information is for everyone and not intended to single you or anyone else out.

[kiwi]

Yeah, I know. I'm an enigma. I like being a business, Id love to deduct all my expenses and offset losses etc. I also like the current status quo where I'm not really worried about making money and primarily shoot for fun.

To add possibly more confusion, or clarity

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=TXR/TR20051/NAT/ATO/00001

I'll report back after my appointment with my tax man

[maccaroneski]

Surely they are writing about you kiwi:


The pursuit of a hobby (or recreational pursuit, or pastime), is not the carrying on of a business for taxation purposes. Money derived from the pursuit of a hobby is not regarded as income and therefore is not assessable. As was said in Ferguson at ATC 4265; ATR 877:

... if what he is doing is more properly described as the pursuit of a hobby or recreation or an addiction to sport, he will not be held to be carrying on a business, even though his operations are fairly substantial.

I think I saw reference on a toilet wall somewhere about your "operations" being "fairly substantial" :)

On a more serious note, the situation seems pretty clear cut from that ruling (especially the "Rosalie" example given) - although I used to interpret this type of thing for a living. A good one to take to your tax accountant when you go to get that advice. I used to hate it when people brought me stuff that answered the question that I didn't know about :)

[enduro]

No, I'm saying charge what you think your photos are worth, as a hobbyist the costs are irrelevent as you'd likely do for free largely anyway, you're not running a p&l, paying tax, declaring expenses etc

If you are a pro you need to know obviously, but not as a hobbyist



HA!

I've never hired a cashy hole digger, tree lopper, mechanic or electrician that thinks that thinks their costs are irrelevant.

If you are shooting photo's and are on the better side of half of good then shoot and charge appropriately. For any industry, there are far too many people out there that can undercharge and either do a crappy job or a maybe a great job and drag down the pay rate of professional photogs or good amateurs.

[chamellieon]

I really only charge for the jobs that are large, or the ones I don't want to do (that don't fall under my interestingness scale). this is sloppy practice i know - but if its cool and i want to be there, im not worried.