The last two editions of Capture Magazine

[Bear Dale]

I just read the last two editions of Capture Magazine. Some prominent Australian Portraiture Photographers were interviewed at length about the industry. Without fail all of these professional photographers took the opportunity to derogatory put the boot into "shoot & burn photographers", "Shopping Mall photographers", "Weekend Warriors", "Newbies with cameras" etc etc etc ad naseum.

It became to me extremely tiresome, yet an interesting insight to a group or genre of professional photographers desperate to be able to keep charging, what to me, seemed like exorbitant fees for their work.

The bemoaning of them being undercut by the cheek of "mere amateurs" (anyone who charged less than them) having the audacity to charge less was repeated often.

It was as I have mentioned very interesting reading and an insight into the psyche of at least these professional portrait photographers who were interviewed for the magazine article.

There were lots of examples of their work. To be honest there was nothing absolutely extraordinarily above what I have seen posted by "amateurs" on this Aussie forum and others.

It all just really smacked of elitism and a justification of their pricing structure.

Interested to hear anyones views who may have read the articles or just in general about pro's versus "weekend warriors" et al.

[I @ M]

And it isn't even fire season in the Southern half of the country yet but be prepared seems a good motto at the moment.
:flame::Extinguish:

[Kym]

The industry is under change.
Low cost easy to use photography means many more people will take photos.
Some of them will learn from experience and the 'net (sites like AP) and produce some damn fine photos.
Some will spend lots on gear and shoot cr*p.
Either way the market is diluted (supply/demand) and the income stream changes as a result.

One word: Adapt!

[Bear Dale]

The industry is under change.


It certainly is and thats what these photographers who were interviewed oft mentioned.

But then again all industries have always been under change. Anything to do with paying customers and a supply and demand business is dynamic and ever changing.

It seemed to me after reading these articles that these photographers can see and are sad that the writing is on the wall and the "good days" of exhorbitant charging may well and truly be coming to and end and all because of other photographers undercutting them.

[atky]

You know what go to any industry and you will here the same thing about being under cut, any area where technology makes your job easier means you become less valuable, they should get over themselves and realize the market is what it is.
They should try making furniture for a living and start competing with China, or they could even try Crash repairs.
They could even go into retail and compete with Kamart BigW and the rest.
Will they get sympathy from the paying public because they have competition, I doubt it, will they get sympathy from other photogs yes but not from the ones trying to get into the market. Tell me what options do you have to get into a market be it photography or anything else. One that comes to my mind is offer better value for money.

[bigdazzler]

I too read the article youre talking of Jim .. and I agree there seemed to be a distinct amount of condescension in the tone of the contributors.

There was one very amusing quote from our very own Longshots, about assistants enjoying touching corporate subjects, which gave me a bit of a chuckle though :D

[Lance B]

To be quite honest, I don't really care what the "pro" photogs think. Yes, what they are saying smacks of elitism, but we all do that from time to time in any walk of life or situation. On the one hand I think they are getting very worried about their livlihoods but on the other, I think they are also concerned about cowboys taking people for a ride, especially those horrid "I'm a wedding photographer, trust me" type charlatons etc.

[ricktas]

I would like to also hear direct from these photographers rather than via a magazine that has probably seen the article go through a reporter, sub-editors and editors before it got to the printing press.

Unfortunately the reputation of print media (magazines and newspapers) has declined rapidly in my books. I have seen articles put to print that are at an almost 90 degree angle to that really stated by the person being interviewed, where the text is edited to fit what the newspaper/magazine want it to for the article they are presenting, rather than factual text based on what the person really said.

[kiwi]

I chuckle about those talking of "exorbitant" fees. Might explain all the ferraris lined up at the pma......not

[Bear Dale]

I too read the article youre talking of Jim .. and I agree there seemed to be a distinct amount of condescension in the tone of the contributors.



There really was an enormous amount of derision in those articles directed at other photographers who are either new, part-time or charging less.

@Rick, I'm not sure (anyway I would hope not from such a well known Australain photography mag) that these articles portrayed the photographers words out of context. The format being that they were asked a set of questions and the photographers gave their answers.

[bigdazzler]

I agree .. it did seem to be a direct Q&A interview type article.

[ricktas]

There really was an enormous amount of derision in those articles directed at other photographers who are either new, part-time or charging less.


Remember (and I could be wrong here) Capture Magazine is provided free to AIPP members, it is part of their membership package. So it is in the interest of the magazine and its owner(s) to promote professional photography above 'others'. Whilst I have not seen the magazine or article, which is why I will not comment on specifics, but I may be overly cautious, but why would a magazine that is directed at professional photographers include an article about how great it is that weekend warriors are entering the market? I would find that highly unlikely, considering the repercussions to its membership and reader base, based in its target market.

[Kym]

http://www.aipp.com.au/aipphome.php?ID=325&cat=Join&A=

Only as a discount offer ;)

[Bear Dale]

Rick, these articles seemed to be aimed at professional portrait photographers because thats what genre these interviewed photographers practiced and they made many mentions of how they hoped that professional portrait photography is being hurt and hoped that it wouldn't go the way of wedding photography and be totally undercut by weekend warriors etc.

[Bear Dale]

You know what go to any industry and you will here the same thing about being under cut, any area where technology makes your job easier means you become less valuable, they should get over themselves and realize the market is what it is.
They should try making furniture for a living and start competing with China, or they could even try Crash repairs.


One of the main things that struck me when I read the articles is that the pro's are trying to sell something that well.......just isn't unique. They're selling something that can be produced just as well by an "amateur". I'd hate to be paying a mortgage and working in an industry like that.

[ricktas]

Rick, these articles seemed to be aimed at professional portrait photographers because thats what genre these interviewed photographers practiced and they made many mentions of how they hoped that professional portrait photography is being hurt and hoped that it wouldn't go the way of wedding photography and be totally undercut by weekend warriors etc.

I think you have found the crux of the issue, maybe without even realising. Why are they 'specialising' and focusing on such a slim part of the market. If you want to be a professional photographer these days, I don't think you can limit your customer base just to weddings, or families, or pets, etc, You need to be able to do a cross-section of photography. I wonder how many of these photographers may have turned down work in the past as it wasn't their "field of focus". I know several who shoot portaits but won't shoot weddings cause they are to stressful. I think some of these Pro's need to accept the industry is changing and move with it. Fighting it is not going to do them any favours in the long term. All industries change, evolve and morph, it is those that roll along with those changes who are the winners.

[junqbox]

If I was a pro tog, I'd be worried about the back yarders coming in too. On the most part, the back yarders undercut themselves on pre-production, equipment and post production usually because they haven't realised how much time/cost a job takes, and the level of real overheads it takes to run an 'ongoing' business.
There are plenty of back yarders that know how to cost a one-off job.
Whenever there is a thread started in here, and elsewhere, about how to go pro, all the usual info get's chipped in about how to make sure you're covering your costs and funding an ongoing business. That's all they're doing, and making their complaints known about the short sightedness of back yarders.
I don't see what the problem with their commentary is.

[maccaroneski]

It's called "progress".

I was a lawyer in private practice when the internet became a popular source of information, and thus people could find out things for themselves, needing me a lot less.

I also did not moan when the Australian Will Kit became available for $30 in newsagents meaning that I could not charge $200 or whatever to prepare a simple will for someone. I just educated myself on creating charitable trusts (something that no-one other than a highly trained lawyer can do), and got to charge a whole lot more than $200 for those.

[Longshots]

I'm not sure if its worth saying too much here, because if I present the case of the full time photographers, I have a strong feeling that explaining about the simple economics of running a business etc, isnt going to offer much of the alternative point of view.


I've read the articles and I think its an interesting position to claim every pro is elitist, and charging exorbitant prices. Perhaps have some understanding that there is some genuine cause for concern. Yes the market has and is changing. Always has been for the 3 decades I've been involved. I know many, like myself started my photographic career, while doing another entirely different career. I never forget that. And many who are FT photgraphers (earn their sole income from photography and photographic related areas), often start that way.

As as a suggestion to you Jim, I dont really see why you think that something that is recognised by the industry as something to adapt with and to, as tiresome ? Its a fact that most people understand has been around for 30 odd years and longer.



Perhaps now its easier for people to set themselves up as a photographer with a website, that can and occasionally does contain images that have not even been shot by that photographer (ie sourced from a stock/image library), with no ABN, possibly no public liability insurance, and just a mobile phone number, if you're lucky.

Sure there are plenty of great part time shooters. They're also some fantastic enthusiasts who regularly produce top quality images that any pro would be proud of if they'd shot them. And there is - without debate - a small element who are in the cowboy league.

Exactly the same can be said of full time professionals who may work to earn a full time living from this industry

I'd suggest that a less abrasive approach to this subject, without the antagonistic generalisations that all pros charge exorbitant fees, would illicit something more productive ;)

FYI people always seem to complain about each other - pro or amateur - that not enough fees are being charged - frankly I think thats riduclous.

And again as a personal view, I think that more of the problem with the industry is that in all honesty, the majority of photographic buyers, simply do not know the difference between a good shot and a bad shot. And that lack of vision/education goes right to the top of leading marketing managers, in leading companies.

And thanks Big Dazzler for reading my piece :)

[Bear Dale]

If you read their arguments it went along the route (IMO) of price fixing. They were asking the newer upcoming photographers et al to charge more in line with what they are charging. Thus they wouldn't have to continuously 1. Explain why their pricing seemed so outrageously high compared to the cheaper photographers and 2. They would stop losing customers.

One pro complained that he charged on average a client $2800 for a portrait shoot and down the road a "shoot & burn" was advertising portrait shoots for $250 including the files.

[zollo]

I too would rather compete with someone on quality rather than price.

[Kym]

If you read their arguments it went along the route (IMO) of price fixing. They were asking the newer upcoming photographers et al to charge more in line with what they are charging. Thus they wouldn't have to continuously 1. Explain why their pricing seemed so outrageously high compared to the cheaper photographers and 2. They would stop losing customers.
Price fixing is illegal, Trade practices act etc. They could be in big trouble if someone complains and quotes the article!! ;)


One pro complained that he charged on average a client $2800 for a portrait shoot and down the road a "shoot & burn" was advertising portrait shoots for $250 including the files.
Competition! supply and demand. And if the $250 deal provides the customer a result that they are happy with? Good on them.

[Bear Dale]

As as a suggestion to you Jim, I dont really see why you think that something that is recognised by the industry as something to adapt with and to, as tiresome ? Its a fact that most people understand has been around for 30 odd years and longer.





I said it was tiresome to repeatedly read, yet an interesting insight.



I've read the articles and I think its an interesting position to claim every pro is elitist, and charging exorbitant prices.

Not sure if that's aimed at me, but if it is, you're way off the mark there.




I think that more of the problem with the industry is that in all honesty, the majority of photographic buyers, simply do not know the difference between a good shot and a bad shot.

It could easily be said that some people who call themselves pros could also wear that hat.

[Bear Dale]

Price fixing is illegal, Trade practices act etc. They could be in big trouble if someone complains and quotes the article!! ;)




Absolutely agree and as I said it's only my opinion, but it would be difficult to read the articles and not form an opinion that the interviewed photographers were not asking for public collusion from other photographers.

[Longshots]

Thank you Jim - but I have read their arguments.

Doesnt mean I agree with them.

What I'm asking is that you treat me as professional without the generalisation and malice.

Once you can understand that there are many views out there, and that is just one. I can probably give you a quick explanation if you like - person who wants to charge $2800 probably has nice s####y studio with staff - other pro down the road, may have a completely different business model that doesnt rely on few clients, prestige market, has a much higher portrait shoot per week ratio, and far less salubrious premises.

I dont have to go far to see many similar industries appealing to different markets - Best and Less vs Myers - T-shirt (a good one) in Best and Less less than $10 - similar T -shirt from Myers probably as much as $100.

In business its not just about the product, its all about many other things.

So that person down the road may be shooting 20 $250 jobs per week - aiming for a completely different market to the person who is charging $2800 for one a week.

Tell me who is making more money ? :)

I regularly present lectures to other pros (and enthusiasts) on the business of photography. Complaining about the person down the street is frankly a waste of effort by those charging that amount. To me its like BMW complaining about Hyundai selling cars much cheaper then they can - utterly pointless.

[Kym]

I too would rather compete with someone on quality rather than price.

And that is often the best way to do it.

But if the guy down the road provide a similar quality product for a much better price? Then you need to find some other differentiator or compete on price.

[Longshots]

Price fixing is illegal, Trade practices act etc. They could be in big trouble if someone complains and quotes the article!! ;)


Competition! supply and demand. And if the $250 deal provides the customer a result that they are happy with? Good on them.


Have you read the article ? Suggesting that someone quotes the article that they could be in big trouble is slightly over the top.

[Bear Dale]

What I'm asking is that you treat me as professional without the generalisation and malice.



I don't think I've treated you with malice and quite frankly I'm astounded at the accusation.

[Kym]

To me its like BMW complaining about Hyundai selling cars much cheaper then they can - utterly pointless.

To a point. But I can differentiate a $25k vehicle from a $100k vehicle.
I may elect to go for the $25k for utilitarian and budgetary reasons, still desiring the BMW.

But when the product differentiation is less discernible then it becomes much more difficult to justify the price.

[Kym]

...slightly over the top.
Note: *could* and the smiley face.
I'm not seriously suggesting based on a magazine article that the TPA would be invoked, just that price fixing (and I'm not even saying that is what is happening) is illegal.
But as the issue was raised it's worth noting that it is not allowed.

[Longshots]

I don't think I've treated you with malice and quite frankly I'm astounded at the accusation.

Maybe its the way I type/speak. Apologies to you - please disregard malice, as I've used the word badlu. I mean to stress the point of please dont treat every pro with the manner in which you've described in your first post - which was to overgeneralise.

There are clear reasons, as I've offered, between pricing differences.

And just because someone charges less doesnt mean to say that they're better or worse, or less professional or more amateur.

[zollo]

And that is often the best way to do it.

But if the guy down the road provide a similar quality product for a much better price? Then you need to find some other differentiator or compete on price.

yes but it's a surprise to know how many customers, when shown a portfolio of expensive work, will see the difference and opt to pay a little more;) (this is where its important that your work is a notch or two above in quality)

the guy down the road wont have an expensive portfolio - he is too busy backing himself into a restrictive (but popular) cheaper market. thats my win

[Longshots]

To a point. But I can differentiate a $25k vehicle from a $100k vehicle.
I may elect to go for the $25k for utilitarian and budgetary reasons, still desiring the BMW.

But when the product differentiation is less discernible then it becomes much more difficult to justify the price.


Sigh - I thought this would be a bit pointless responding to offer a position from a pros point of view.

Look Kym its not just about the cost of the final print, that equates to the material cost. Its not just about the end product.

I have tried to offer a position of explanation of different business models, but it seems to me that you're quite happy to accept differences in quality between a BMW and Hyundai, but you think that its difficult to see the difference between two differently priced photographers, where there may - yes may - be a difference in quality and the overall experience ? Go back to my comment about people not being able to "see" that difference.

Considering that you havent read the article (which I have in front of me), reminding people that price fixing is illegal is obvious and any professional industry is well aware of business rules from the ACCC.

[bigdazzler]

the guy down the road wont have an expensive portfolio - he is too busy backing himself into a restrictive (but popular) cheaper market. thats my win

not necessarily mate .. Ive seen plenty of part timers with OUTSTANDING portfolios ;) Some people are just happy to make what they make.

[Longshots]

not necessarily mate .. Ive seen plenty of part timers with OUTSTANDING portfolios ;) Some people are just happy to make what they make.

Thank you. Exactly my point.

No ones answered the question about who may be making more profit - the guy down the road, or the one charging much more ?

[zollo]

not necessarily mate .. Ive seen plenty of part timers with OUTSTANDING portfolios ;) Some people are just happy to make what they make.

which is why this debate will never be won by either side. I agree about the part timer but in all honesty by high end portfolio I mean stuff a part timer wont be able to achieve. recently I did a 3 week across australia photoshoot for a german carmaker launching a new 4x4 product in Oz. i had 2 fulltime assistants with me in a convoy of 7 vehicles in total. now i get to say to prospective clients, look at this, its what you could have for a little extra.

[Longshots]

I know plenty of photographers - full time and part time - who will and can shoot a house for less then $100, inside and outside, with views. Some are quite good, and some are quite dreadful. And they will have to do it within a remarkable short time - they would need to do that if they want to stay in business, otherwise they may as well go and earn more being on a till at Big W.

And I know plenty who will spend two to three days shooting the same house, and carefully processing the images from the shoot, with plenty of pedantic care and attention to the small details.

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

Come on take the challenge you know you all want to ? :)

Its business. There are different prices out there. The market will and always has worked out who wins and who loses. And its not always the one that go for the cheaper end that will be the loser.

So from a pros point of view, a few people commenting on the woes of the industry should not automatically label everyone with the same view.

[zollo]

I know plenty of photographers - full time and part time - who will and can shoot a house for less then $100, inside and outside, with views. Some are quite good, and some are quite dreadful. And they will have to do it within a remarkable short time - they would need to do that if they want to stay in business, otherwise they may as well go and earn more being on a till at Big W.

And I know plenty who will spend two to three days shooting the same house, and carefully processing the images from the shoot, with plenty of pedantic care and attention to the small details.

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

Come on take the challenge you know you all want to ? :)

I'd like to answer, but because I'd be providing business advice, I'd have to charge you $50.


Its business. There are different prices out there. The market will and always has worked out who wins and who loses. And its not always the one that go for the cheaper end that will be the loser.

So from a pros point of view, a few people commenting on the woes of the industry should not automatically label everyone with the same view.



agreed
I'd like to answer, but because I'd be providing business advice, I'd have to charge you $50

[Bear Dale]

Maybe its the way I type/speak. Apologies to you - please disregard malice, as I've used the word badlu. I mean to stress the point of please dont treat every pro with the manner in which you've described in your first post - which was to overgeneralise.



Can you please re-read my first post again, then maybe re-read it again. I didn't overgeneralise at all about professional photographers.

If you're going to accuse me of something, can you please ensure that I'm guilty of said offence first. Otherwise you're just casting incorrect aspersions against me.

[Longshots]

OK Jim as requested I've read and reread your first post.


I just read the last two editions of Capture Magazine. Some prominent Australian Portraiture Photographers were interviewed at length about the industry. Without fail all of these professional photographers took the opportunity to derogatory put the boot into "shoot & burn photographers", "Shopping Mall photographers", "Weekend Warriors", "Newbies with cameras" etc etc etc ad naseum.

It became to me extremely tiresome, yet an interesting insight to a group or genre of professional photographers desperate to be able to keep charging, what to me, seemed like exorbitant fees for their work.

The bemoaning of them being undercut by the cheek of "mere amateurs" (anyone who charged less than them) having the audacity to charge less was repeated often.

It was as I have mentioned very interesting reading and an insight into the psyche of at least these professional portrait photographers who were interviewed for the magazine article.

There were lots of examples of their work. To be honest there was nothing absolutely extraordinarily above what I have seen posted by "amateurs" on this Aussie forum and others.

It all just really smacked of elitism and a justification of their pricing structure.

Interested to hear anyones views who may have read the articles or just in general about pro's versus "weekend warriors" et al.

And I've done what you say, and like you I have an opinion. And in that opinion when you include say this:




I just read the last two editions of Capture Magazine.............


Some prominent Australian Portraiture Photographers were interviewed at length about the industry.

Without fail all of these professional photographers

took the opportunity to derogatory put the boot into "shoot & burn photographers", "Shopping Mall photographers", "Weekend Warriors", "Newbies with cameras" etc etc etc ad naseum.

Then its my opinion that you are over generalising. Having read the last issue and the one before, I cant agree with that.

As your'e commenting on the last two issues, I was one of the people interviewed, you're also including me in that sweeping statemnt. As you state "Without fail all of these professional photographers" etc.


So while I respect your opinion, I too have one. And that is why I think that you're over generalising.


I'm making no apology for having that view, as its clear to me what you're saying.

[ricktas]

I know plenty of photographers - full time and part time - who will and can shoot a house for less then $100, inside and outside, with views. Some are quite good, and some are quite dreadful. And they will have to do it within a remarkable short time - they would need to do that if they want to stay in business, otherwise they may as well go and earn more being on a till at Big W.

And I know plenty who will spend two to three days shooting the same house, and carefully processing the images from the shoot, with plenty of pedantic care and attention to the small details.

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

Come on take the challenge you know you all want to ? :)

Its business. There are different prices out there. The market will and always has worked out who wins and who loses. And its not always the one that go for the cheaper end that will be the loser.

So from a pros point of view, a few people commenting on the woes of the industry should not automatically label everyone with the same view.

Yep and to use the same industry comparison. Some real estate agents advertise they take commission of 3% flat, on the total sale value of a property, others charge significantly above that. People still go to the higher commission places, yet both can sell the same house. Why would you...Cause paying a higher commission means probably a better advertising campaign, if going to Auction, a better final price (maybe), service and reputation..thats why! and it applies to photographers too. Some people can do well in an industry while others fail, is that the fault of the industry, or the particular person in it? My thoughts are that whilst there is an over-supply of photographers, it is those that don't have the commitment and dedication that will fall off the way-side.

[Longshots]

I do wish someone would take up my challenge though. Its soo relevant to this conversation and a few answers would highlight the issue.

Come on, surely one person is up for a try - it's a simple enough question:

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 houses = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

[kiwi]

OK, I'll bite

Its not how much you earn, income is the same in both case

It's the costs

Im going to assume that your physical time spent is the same, so no change to labour rate
Im going to assume that the costs of say travel alone will cause you to make more profit on job #2

[Bear Dale]

I was one of the people interviewed, you're also including me in that sweeping statemnt.

It was a statement in regards to the 5 professional portrait photographers in the portrait special Trade Secrets.

Unless you use a pseudonym here or you used a pseudonym in the article I don't think you are one of those five. Though you can correct me if I am wrong on this count.

In regards to my statement. I wholeheartedly stand by my original post and my comments on the photographers in relation to the article. I no way am I generalising these comments to all professional photographers, only the pubic comments made by these 5.
They put their thoughts out there and their thoughts are public and may be scrutinized.

[kiwi]

pubic comments always get a bit hairy

But, I read that you thought that these 5 were probably representative of the industry view as well to be honest

[Longshots]

OK so cheers for clarifying. The original comment did follow your very first sentence of referring to two issues of Capture, and no I dont use a pseudonym. Unlike many here I use my real name.

So now we've understood each other, lets put that behind us. Yes they put their thoughts out there - just like you have, and yes I'm scrutnising everyone, because thats why I assume you started this topic.

Would you now like to respond to the actual points you've made about high pricing concerns ?

And Kiwi, I thought at least you would take on the fairly simple question with an answer ?

Come on, there seems to be an issue with high pricing, so why not answer the oh so simple question of mine in response to this topic ?


And BTW Capture is an independent magazine - ie neithe AIPP or ACMP influence its editorial content. Its actually been previously closer tied (in the way of content subject matter) to ACMP in the past.

Another BTW 5 people do not speak for the overall industry.

And it all comes down to the reading - anyone else here other than Jim and myself read the entire piece he's referring to ? Not many I think, as I have read it and clearly reached a very different conclusion to Jim.

[Bear Dale]

William, just read your article written by Julian Watt and it brought a smile to my face. I like your disarming technique and the assisants fetish comment was very funny. Congrats on your interview and being published.

My original post was in reference to Marc Gafen's article, sorry if I inadvertantly cloistered you with that article and those five photographers featured in that article.

What did you think of the other interview and thoughts? Is it something that has always been there in the photographic industry or has digital made the blur between amateur and pro even harder to discern?

[I @ M]

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

There are so many variables in a scenario such as that to answer 100% correctly but I would estimate that generally the higher charging one job per week shooter will have a better income at the end of the year.

Only problem is, I tend to see things back to front at times and I found myself speculating about who was going to be hurt most if one client either simply didn't pay, went bankrupt or didn't like the end product and refused to pay. :rolleyes:

[Bear Dale]

pubic comments always get a bit hairy

But, I read that you thought that these 5 were probably representative of the industry view as well to be honest

Fair enough, I thought I was covering being accused of generalisations of all pros with this line -


It was as I have mentioned very interesting reading and an insight into the psyche of at least these professional portrait photographers who were interviewed for the magazine article.

[Longshots]

There are so many variables in a scenario such as that to answer 100% correctly but I would estimate that generally the higher charging one job per week shooter will have a better income at the end of the year.

Only problem is, I tend to see things back to front at times and I found myself speculating about who was going to be hurt most if one client either simply didn't pay, went bankrupt or didn't like the end product and refused to pay. :rolleyes:

Thank you Andrew. I wonder if anyone else would like to have a go ?

Once someone has a stab at who they think would make the most profit, I would happily continue on with what I feel would be a reasonable explanation to the economics.

Sorry Kiwi, you sat on the fence as well.

So would anyone else like to answer this question:

Come on, surely one person is up for a try - it's a simple enough question:

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 houses = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

[kiwi]

Did I, job #2....least risk in my opinion for a whole lot of reasons. Less travel, less hassle, let direct costs probably, less chance of bad debt, less chance of missing out to other "cheap end" shooters

But, you have to assume all these things unless youve tried either, and I havent

If costs are the same, possible but unlikely then the profit's the same.

[junqbox]

In my role, I've had many opportunities to commission work from professional photographers. There will always be someone who can come in at a lower price but what I'm also happy to pay for is a professional approach (that means ready to go when the clock starts ticking), they have the right equipment (and enough of it as required), they can create the look that's required and can deliver the work (to brief and expectation) even if something does go pearshaped. Then be there 12 months later if additional rollover costs or whatever are required.
In terms of portraits, you're often not paying for a 'good' shot, you're paying for something that will satisfy the CEOs ego when that shot appears next to his peers.
Now go back and add up the cost of having all that gear on hand, how many years it took to acquire the skill and expertise (and the gear) and you might start getting close to why a pro gets miffed by the backyarders.
They have a genuine concern and are expressing it. You may not like what they say, but it's 'their view'.
I have had someone propose to shoot our product for $40 a shot (finished), I know my general average cost from my preferred supplier is 4-5x that price, but I know the finished product I get will meet all the specs provided, unlike the person who tried telling me they would be able to do the same with lesser equipment, luckily for me i have some photography knowledge, that other prospects may not have had and thus I could ask the technical questions.

[Longshots]

What did you think of the other interview and thoughts? Is it something that has always been there in the photographic industry or has digital made the blur between amateur and pro even harder to discern?

I'd like more time to put my personal view on that specific interview forward :)

But to answer your last question - the problem is an old one. True it is exasberated by the ease of digital and the simple act of:

1) buying a twin lens dslr kit
2) owning a mobile phone
3) putting up a website
4) "borrowing"/using stock photography that's been shot by someone else to illustrate your website

BTW while 4) while that may sound contentious, its real and it happens.

That's all someone needs to start a business. And that can be achieve for under a grand these days.

[Longshots]

Did I, job #2....least risk in my opinion for a whole lot of reasons. Less travel, less hassle, let direct costs probably, less chance of bad debt, less chance of missing out to other "cheap end" shooters

But, you have to assume all these things unless youve tried either, and I havent

If costs are the same, possible but unlikely then the profit's the same.

There is a small point - and excuse me for being pedantic, but you havent answered the question. I didnt ask you your preferred option Darren

Lets keep this simple :)

The question was
number 1 shoots 20 houses @ $100 per house
number 2 shoots 1 house for $2,000

Each takes same amount of days. No other information :)


This is the important bit - this is the original question - Who makes the most profit ? (not what you'd prefer)

[zollo]

#2 makes the most profit

[Bear Dale]

4) "borrowing"/using stock photography that's been shot by someone else to illustrate your website

BTW while 4) while that may sound contentious, its real and it happens.



Thats sad that people can do something like that. Eventually they will be caught out and before that happens they're not only fooling themselves, but they're cheating potential clients and cheating the person they stole the work off.

[kiwi]

The client makes the most profit with no.1

Otherwise no information no difference

[junqbox]

The client makes the most profit with no.1

Otherwise no information no difference

Not necessarily, a real estate agent might be able to gather the interest of a customer who is willing to pay more for a property, based on the photography/ad alone.

[ricktas]

There is a small point - and excuse me for being pedantic, but you havent answered the question. I didnt ask you your preferred option Darren

Lets keep this simple :)

The question was
number 1 shoots 20 houses @ $100 per house
number 2 shoots 1 house for $2,000

Each takes same amount of days. No other information :)


This is the important bit - this is the original question - Who makes the most profit ? (not what you'd prefer)

My thoughts. Either! It depends entirely on the individual photographer, their business plan etc. The one who shoots 20 houses, has then had exposure to 20 families. Those 20 families, if they are happy with the shots, and feel they got value for money are likely to recommend the photographer to their family/friends. Whereas the photographer who shot one property, has been exposed to one family, his/her networking ability and word-of-mouth marketing is restricted compared to the other photographer! BUT, the photographer who only shot the one house may have been aiming at a different market, in the mult-million dollar house range, and therefore the ongoing benefits of doing a good job for this shoot, meaning the owners are likely to associate with others in a similar financial demographic, thus the one single house shoot could lead to a lot more work of more value.

I don't believe there is a simple one size fits all answer to your question William!

[CherylB]

Okay - I'll bite!

From an economic point of view, all costs being equal, the second shooter charging $2000 makes the most profit by far!

[Longshots]

My thoughts. Either! It depends entirely on the individual photographer, their business plan etc. The one who shoots 20 houses, has then had exposure to 20 families. Those 20 families, if they are happy with the shots, and feel they got value for money are likely to recommend the photographer to their family/friends. Whereas the photographer who shot one property, has been exposed to one family, his/her networking ability and word-of-mouth marketing is restricted compared to the other photographer! BUT, the photographer who only shot the one house may have been aiming at a different market, in the mult-million dollar house range, and therefore the ongoing benefits of doing a good job for this shoot, meaning the owners are likely to associate with others in a similar financial demographic, thus the one single house shoot could lead to a lot more work of more value.

I don't believe there is a simple one size fits all answer to your question William!

Thanks Rick - this is all deliberate, and I'm aware of all of those options/scenarios.



OK lets simplify the point of the question further and suggest this scenario to you which I use in my lecture on the issue of the business of photography.

2 shops - both have same overheads, expenses etc etc etc.

Both sell a product, which for argument sake, we’ll call identical vases.

Shop sells the vase for $100

Shop B sells the vase for $50

How many vases does shop B have to sell to match or exceed Shop as profit?

And this is to illustrate the many points raised in the Capture interviews, which by my own personal way of reading this simply higlighted the often first choice of those entering the market to simply find out some prices and start off being cheaper.

So does anyone fancy a go at this question then ?

[tomtom1]

My thoughts. Either! It depends entirely on the individual photographer, their business plan etc. The one who shoots 20 houses, has then had exposure to 20 families. Those 20 families, if they are happy with the shots, and feel they got value for money are likely to recommend the photographer to their family/friends. Whereas the photographer who shot one property, has been exposed to one family, his/her networking ability and word-of-mouth marketing is restricted compared to the other photographer! BUT, the photographer who only shot the one house may have been aiming at a different market, in the mult-million dollar house range, and therefore the ongoing benefits of doing a good job for this shoot, meaning the owners are likely to associate with others in a similar financial demographic, thus the one single house shoot could lead to a lot more work of more value.

I don't believe there is a simple one size fits all answer to your question William!

Agreed, there are other factors such as different markets and target clients. There may be more people around looking for a quickie, cheap photoshoot. Does the $2000 shooter have enough business to keep them occupied?

However the question is referring to this specific situation, and I agree that the $2000 will make more profit. Profit = Gross Income - Cost. Their income is the same, however the single house shooter will have less travel costs (petrol, car depreciation), time dealing with different clients (phone bills etc.), possibly less processing time (less bulk of images)

[tomtom1]

Thanks Rick - this is all deliberate, and I'm aware of all of those options/scenarios.



OK lets simplify the point of the question further and suggest this scenario to you which I use in my lecture on the issue of the business of photography.

2 shops - both have same overheads, expenses etc etc etc.

Both sell a product, which for argument sake, we’ll call identical vases.

Shop sells the vase for $100

Shop B sells the vase for $50

How many vases does shop B have to sell to match or exceed Shop as profit?

And this is to illustrate the many points raised in the Capture interviews, which by my own personal way of reading this simply higlighted the often first choice of those entering the market to simply find out some prices and start off being cheaper.

So does anyone fancy a go at this question then ?

What's the cost price of the vase?

[ricktas]

Thanks Rick - this is all deliberate, and I'm aware of all of those options/scenarios.



OK lets simplify the point of the question further and suggest this scenario to you which I use in my lecture on the issue of the business of photography.

2 shops - both have same overheads, expenses etc etc etc.

Both sell a product, which for argument sake, we’ll call identical vases.

Shop sells the vase for $100

Shop B sells the vase for $50

How many vases does shop B have to sell to match or exceed Shop as profit?

And this is to illustrate the many points raised in the Capture interviews, which by my own personal way of reading this simply higlighted the often first choice of those entering the market to simply find out some prices and start off being cheaper.

So does anyone fancy a go at this question then ?

ONE. If shop B sells one vase, and shop A doesn't (cause it's price is way over-inflated for the same vase). Shop B wins! But this argument does not hold true for photographers, cause the quality of the vase (photographs) will not be exactly the same due to time constraints on the $200.00 photographer.

[Longshots]

What's the cost price of the vase?

$40

[Longshots]

ONE. If shop B sells one vase, and shop A doesn't (cause it's price is way over-inflated for the same vase). Shop B wins! But this argument does not hold true for photographers, cause the quality of the vase (photographs) will not be exactly the same due to time constraints on the $200.00 photographer.

Trust me, go with the flow on this Rick - assume that the vase is the same quality.......:)

[Longshots]

Okay - I'll bite!

From an economic point of view, all costs being equal, the second shooter charging $2000 makes the most profit by far!

OK, I'll just point out that exactly the same time is spent on the 1 house by the $2000 photographer, and the 20 houses by the $100 photographer.

Do you still think the same ?

While adding no further information, (as its not required, other than an obvious business premise) I'll admit that there is a slight catch to all of this :) !

[tomtom1]

$40

In that case, shop a is making $60 per sale, shop b $10

Shop B will need to outsell Shop A at a ratio of 6:1 to break even.

Not sure where you're going with this one, shop A would be quite lucky to get a sale with this competition depending on how close the shops are to each other!

edit: just thinking about it more, shop B -may- make up some or all of the difference as people coming in to the shop to buy the vase might also purchase other items - more traffic

[Longshots]

In that case, shop a is making $60 per sale, shop b $10

Shop B will need to outsell Shop A at a ratio of 6:1 to break even.

Not sure where you're going with this one, shop A would be quite lucky to get a sale with this competition depending on how close the shops are to each other!

edit: just thinking about it more, shop B -may- make up some or all of the difference as people coming in to the shop to buy the vase might also purchase other items - more traffic

Again, Ill just keep plodding on with the specific question (trust me, it will all be clear):

How many vases does shop B have to sell to match or exceed Shop A's profit?

[ricktas]

The problem is that the real world is not that simple William. Shop B though cheaper could be setup in Antarctica, shop A could be at the Chelsea Flower Show. I get what you are trying to do, but unfortunately business does not operate in such a simple manner.

[Longshots]

Um I did say that they both had the same overheads etc.

And this is a simplified demonstration of the economics of business Rick. Run with this for a moment as opposed to telling me its not real - many test scenarios are not real, but require an element of stretching ones imagination to allow a better comprehension - I know its not real - this is to highlight what some people see as exorbitant price differences (which occur in many areas, not just photography); I'm trying to highlight what was the basis for many of the comments in the Capture article. So its all on topic, and all of this has a distinct point.

I actually dont think you know where I'm going with this.

So let your imagination run wild and take away logic for a moment and give the question a go :)

[ricktas]

Shop B has to sell 6:1 to match shop A or 7:1 to better it's profit. This is based on your simplistic view, that you asked us to do.

[arthurking83]

I'm afraid that the question(from William) is a bit ambiguous for my tastes;

Is the question who makes the most profit for any length of time over a long period, or the most profit per shoot/session/single event?

obviously per event the $2000 per shoot photographer will do quite well, but if the market is more demanding of the $100 per shoot scenario the $100 dollar shooter may ultimately win in the long run.

your costs don't have to be set to a specific base, and the smarter operators(and I mean smarter in terms of acumen, not of the shark variety) will probably be booked to high heaven and then in making a small er profit per unit, then subsequently find that they also have enough profit to enlist the services of another assistant that can also do some of the work. this then has the snowballing effect whereby the $100tog then seeks out even more work at the same 4100 rate thus creating a large and well established firm that works on the basis of lean and efficient management.. and is probably raking in millions.. due to the much higher demand.. and there's no doubt thast the demand is there.

But the $2000Tog has loads of time to sit and contemplate life in a much more serene manner and may probably get a few jobs per year from those realtors in the affluent suburbs, for another few months or so, until the highly creative smart operator then realises that he too can also charge a more appropriate fee to those affluent suburb real estate agencies.. more like $500 per shoot.. thus leaving the well to do $2000tog nowhere to go, as they now don't have the million dollar resources behind themselves to compete against the $100tog.

The reality is that whoever makes the most profit(irrespective of whether on a per photo basis, or for the financial year) is not really an argument for this situation. As long as the pro respects the rights of the amateur to also exist, then they themselves will also get the same respect from others.

------------------------
As to the article:
If the article(which I haven't read) has been heavily one sided and based only on comments from those pros that only complain of the backyarders, then the readership has every right to consider the possibility that all pro photographer share the same negative perspective on the weekend warriors menace.

It's not our prerogative as the reader of the article to assume that this is only the mindset of only a few pros and that no other pros take that point of view.
That responsibility is with the creators of the article to declare, in the article.

I think it has something to do with balanced reporting, or some other BS.
If only one reader has now taken the view that all pros seem to have this anxiety towards and scornful outlook on the amateur portrait photography industry, then the author of the article and the magazine have failed as a source of balanced information.

Sounds like a fantastic quality magazine :rolleyes:

NOTE:: I have not deliberately posted to deride the magazine itself. I'm only posting my thoughts based on what is being implied in this thread. I've read the entire thread a few times and no where has anyone mentioned that nay professional portrait photographers have countered the comments made by those mentioned by the OP.

Oh! and on the topic of profits, if I opened up a hamburger shop and sold hamburgers at $10 each, and I sold 1000 hamburgers per week, who makes the most profit?.. me or McDonalds?

[kiwi]

I pass, could be any number from 1x to 10x

totally depends on the profit ratio

profit = income - direct costs = gross margin - less expenses = profit - less tax = profit after tax

[I @ M]

Lost me a long time ago with the mathematics.

I am still trying to figure out how F/4 is 2x F/8 :confused013

[tomtom1]

Again, Ill just keep plodding on with the specific question (trust me, it will all be clear):

How many vases does shop B have to sell to match or exceed Shop A's profit?

I've been trying to think around the subject, but have run out of ideas.

I'll go with 6

[Longshots]

Great.

OK the absolute standard for people to do when entering the photographic industry is to ask what to charge. Then the next step is to find out what other people around them are charging, and then charge less - a great deal less - generally (yep I'm generalising :) ) they start at half the price.


And its interesting that many response to my questions, have produce many of the reasons why there are such apparently large differences. Quality, location, different genres, different purposes, etc.

OK so back to the shop - the question was how many vases does Shop B have to sell to match or exceed Shop A's PROFIT.

I did say that the running costs of each shop were the same. And I did say that the cost of the vase was $40.

So I'm afraid that its certainly not 6 : 1 or more.

The cost of the Vase is for argument sake $40

And then again for argument sake there are the running costs of the shop, the staff, etc, etc.

First of all would, why assume that Shop A is making a profit ?

Many people look at other photographers costs, and instead of making a financial plan on the basis of their own individual costs, go out and base their business on someone else financial business plan.


So lets assume that Shop A is making a profit.

So back to the shops
Shop A - selling for $100
Vase $40 - plus usual business running costs - shop/elex/rates/insurance lets say $5 per vase total $45

So $55 profit for each Vase sale

Shop B selling for $50
Vase $40 - plus usual business running costs - shop/elex/rates/insurance lets say $5 per vase total $45

So $5 profit for each Vase sale

That would be 11 to 1 required
Shop A sells 2 Vases = Shop B needs to sell 22 vases - and so on......

But what if Shop A is instead of assuming that they're charging an exorbitant price, they are actually charging a realistic price which pays for the business expenses, the staff, and still allows a reasonable profit to ensure further development of the business, and give a small amount to be put away for capital expenditure in better equipment for the business.

If so the ratio changes quite dramatically.

Back to the shops again

So back to the shops - but now we're going to look at a different outcome - with different costs
Shop A - selling for $100
Vase $40 - plus usual business running costs - shop/elex/rates/insurance lets say $25 per vase total $65

So $55 profit for each Vase sale

Shop B selling for $50
Vase $40 - plus usual business running costs - shop/elex/rates/insurance lets say $5 per vase total $45

So $15 LOSS for each Vase sale

Now there isnt a ratio anymore as every vase sold is a "loss leader", which is fine if you have other products to sell. If not, it wont be long before two things happen, one the business cuts back on the costs, and takes short cuts, and two, the business is eventually out of business.


Now this is the message I would have given. That instead of people always, but always, asking what they should charge, they would be far better off to do a real business plan based on their individual costs and requirements. A family person, with a studio, staff, home mortgage, car payments, children at school, is going to need to charge a lot more than someone who has none of those things. And similarly, the reality is that someone who has a full time job doing something else, is going to charge a great deal less again, as they may simply be looking at the obvious costs of the materials they're purchasing, and dont need to be concerned about medical health cover, super payments, and insurance. Thats reality. So there are always going to be price differences and there's always going to be differences in quality. Best and Less may sell their lingerie for $5, and yet a boutique lingerie shop may sell something seemingly similar for over $100. Yes there will be difference. To some it wont be worth it and to others its obviously worth it. Market forces will always dictate. But being the cheapest doesnt always work, and the same thing goes for being the most expensive doesnt always work. What works is having a proper financial plan, with a realistic expectation of what is possible based on proper research, and proper planning. Sadly that is virtually always the number one problem for thos entering the industry.

This issue has been around for a very long long time, and after having a quick read of those interviewed in the magazine article, this is the message that I read from that.

Now that's my (sorry) long winded response to Jims post :)

So of course there will be price differences, that is business.

I have friends who are far busier than I am. Those friends do a great deal more turnover than me. And yet (disregarding the obvious claims that self employed people can claim more re taxable income) do they have more disposable income ? Do they own their house, or even their own car ? No. And the reason they dont is that many photographers out there, like some of my good friends, have never worked out that in some cases the cost of doing their business is not being replaced the income they are accomplishing for their work.

A well respected photographer was asked quite recently the secret of financial success for professional photographers in Australia. His response was quite serious - "Have a partner with a well paid full time job in anything other than photography".

[Longshots]

I pass, could be any number from 1x to 10x

totally depends on the profit ratio

profit = income - direct costs = gross margin - less expenses = profit - less tax = profit after tax

Yay - exactly - got that in as I just was typing my marathon :)

Shop A might not have even been making a profit at $100 per vase.

[ricktas]

Sorry William, but I and many others tried to include all that in our replies (that other issues and influences affect the outcome), yet you kept pushing for a SIMPLE answer. Your answer is not enlightening in any way to the SIMPLE answer you requested, and in fact belittles our previous replies where several of us tried to point out that other factors come into play.

[Longshots]

Sorry, how have I belittled anyone ? I've given many talks using this hypothetical situation. I'm genuinely puzzled, I'm explaining the issue and how many people go into business with a very simplistic attitude towards how they charge Rick. Yes I was giving a simple situation, the response was actually quite simple. Sorry, clearly I've annoyed you if you feel I've belittled you, which I'm not sure how you feel that.

I'm genuinely puzzled by that response. As I've given this analogy to many different groups, and students, absolutely no one has reacted like that before. I was trying to offer an opinion and a point of view. :confused013

And the very simple answer was how do know that Shop A is making a profit. Sorry that it wasnt enlightening. It was my opinion.

[ricktas]

Sorry, how have I belittled anyone ? I've given many talks using this hypothetical situation. I'm genuinely puzzled, I'm explaining the issue and how many people go into business with a very simplistic attitude towards how they charge Rick. Yes I was giving a simple situation, the response was actually quite simple. Sorry, clearly I've annoyed you if you feel I've belittled you, which I'm not sure how you feel that.

I'm genuinely puzzled by that response.

WHY? We responded with replies that outlined how your scenario was not as simple as you wanted our replies to be. You kept pressing us for a SIMPLE answer. Yet when you got one, you then turned it round to be about costs etc to the business.

You pushed us to answer the way you wanted us to..with a simple 6:1 or 7:1, after several of us commented about all the other aspects that come into play. Then when you get the simple answer you turn it about and talk about all the stuff we had raised, but was brushed off, cause you wanted a SIMPLE answer.

[Longshots]

I'm not even sure that its worth continuing because I've clearly upset you, and I have no idea why.

Yes the scenario was simple, and the answer is despite what you've said, is deceptively simple. The answer is/was all about profits, and the assumption that there is some. This is what the issue was about - charging.

I see no reason to berate me because you didnt personally like the outcome.

As I said, I've given this scenario, which generally takes just a few mins to deliver and generally encourages debate - as it did here, with plenty of thoughts and views into the difference between someone seemingly charging a great deal more than the photographer down the road. In over a decade, I've not received your clearly upset response before.

[ricktas]

Read through the thread William. When you asked about the $200.00 and $2000.00 photographer you got replies about costs, business plans, demographic market etc. You rejected those replies and pushed for more. When 'all was revealed" your reply is not something wonderful and new, in fact it is exactly what we were saying all along, but you rejected. I am not upset, rather I am disillusioned that you felt the need to reject our replies, yet your ultimate answer was exactly what we were saying. If you read through the thread you will see that! I am not berating you cause I didn't like the outcome, in fact I am not berating you at all. I am simply pointing out that we answered your questions, had those answers rejected and then your reply is no different to our original answers..that is, there are way to many factors that come into play to simplify the answer to the scenario's

[Longshots]

Well actually you said I'd belittled.


And I'll maintain that as I have read and reread the points raised, that the question of "Is Shop Making a Profit" was NEVER ASKED.

I never asked you for a ratio. As you asked me to reread everything (which I have) perhaps you might like to read and reread that question about the shops. I even stressed the word profit. Many people go into business (any business) without producing a proper business plan, but base their sales forecast and adhoc business plan on what their competitors are charging.

So to me its simple. The question was simple, and the answer is quite simple. Best answer I ever received was from a 15 year old student, who immediately responded with that answer, (" How do we know that Shop A is making a profit?"), once this scenario was put to the audience.

From my perspective, as that was my point, it was that simple. But clearly thats a subjective point of view. As I've clearly said yes the question was simplistic.

My lengthy explanation of the problems are about new people facing when entering the industry - which was what I took from the Capture interviews, as opposed to Jims view.

[ricktas]

Perhaps the use of the word belittled was ill conceived, for that I apologise.

[Longshots]

Read through the thread William. When you asked about the $200.00 and $2000.00 photographer you got replies about costs, business plans, demographic market etc. You rejected those replies and pushed for more. When 'all was revealed" your reply is not something wonderful and new, in fact it is exactly what we were saying all along, but you rejected. I am not upset, rather I am disillusioned that you felt the need to reject our replies, yet your ultimate answer was exactly what we were saying. If you read through the thread you will see that! I am not berating you cause I didn't like the outcome, in fact I am not berating you at all. I am simply pointing out that we answered your questions, had those answers rejected and then your reply is no different to our original answers..that is, there are way to many factors that come into play to simplify the answer to the scenario's

Well I did as you asked Rick, and it seems that I didnt reject any answers to the question about the photographers question.


I didnt ask my second question until page 3. That question was deliberately different. It was only then that I asked people to, scuse the pun, to focus, on that second question, which was based on what profit etc. I never asked for a ratio.

I'm not quite sure that why you felt so "disillusioned", as my answer was almost offered my Kiwi, but even he still missed the most important point.


I did say that costs were identical for both shops. As I said, its a scenario I've often given, and some years ago a 15 year old student answered immediately after I place this hypothetical situation to them with "How do we know that Shop A is even making a profit ?".

Many people eventually come up with that question. Personally I think that you've misunderstood my intent, and missed my point.

[tomtom1]

First of all, it's an interesting discussion and thanks for facilitating it Longshots.

So the net lesson is: don't make assumptions about others' profit margins, and don't base your own rates on what others charge.

I can definitely see the logic in this argument, but I'm not sure your vase example was the clearest way of conveying this, as the underlying premise of your lesson seems to be: depends what the costs are - these may exceed sale value, and I agree that these arguments were previously made and somewhat brushed aside.

It's well and good to recommend that photographers select an appropriate profit margin for their situation when pricing their services.

However as you illustrate, people who don't depend on photography to maintain their lifestyle don't necessarily look into their margins very carefully, and price their services lower (maybe they are not in it for the money).

I know you're trying to justify and provide some insight into the 'exorbitant' prices of pros, however really the consumer will not care how big your mortgage is, or how many kids you have. If they perceive that similar services can be provided at a lower price by someone else, how are the pros going to compete?

I think a reasonable analogy for this situation might be the competition between bricks and mortar retailers vs Internet stores?

Perhaps a more positive discussion would focus on, how can pros evolve their business model in response, whether it's price, quality of photos, service?

[ricktas]

Scenario 3..or 4.. or whatever we are up to

I am going to borrow some of Williams thoughts here.

Using the same two photographers, one charges $200.00 per house, the other charges $2000.00 per house. The $200.00 photographer does 10 houses in three days and the $2000.00 does one!

One business model about how to determine your pricing is the work out what you want to earn in a year, then work backwards, calculating all your costs and eventually you will work out a weekly/hourly rate based on how much you want to make in 12 months. Let's make this simple, both work 6 days a week (not uncommon for the self employed), both have a sound business plan. Both have costs of $2000.00 per week, and thus each week earns them $2000.00 profit. At the end of the year when they submit their financial statements to their accountant. Guess what, they both have the same financial figures!

Now based on this scenario and using this business model, would/should the $2000.00 for three days work photographer consider the $200.00 jobs if they were offered? My guess is that many would say no, but ultimately they could do it and earn the same amount for the week. Why is that? Why do photographers decline jobs (remember the magazine article is directly related to undercutting in the industry), when their weekly bottom line would not be any different under either pricing structure? Sometimes business people are to blinkered to see what is right in front of them. Is someone really under-cutting, or is someone else over-charging? It is all in the perspective.

I think some people (not just photographers) need to sit down and really assess their business plan and look beyond what they currently do, and evolve and consider alternate pricing and time management options. Being in business is hard work, but sometimes the business person is the worst enemy of their own business.

Now they both assess their pricing at the end of the financial year, as businesses should . Each decides to increase their per job rate by $50.00. In the next year, which one earns more? Most likely though, in year two, their prices would not increase equally as they would need to assess all their costs etc again, and costs can vary wildly. However the $200.00 per job photographer is more able to think, wow, I did well, maybe I can increase my rate a little and do 5 less jobs a week, and still get the same income next year, and have Saturday afternoon's with the family. It is much harder for the $2000.00 per job photographer to do this, seeing they only do 2 jobs each week anyway. Business plans are complex creatures and need to be constantly evaluated and adjusted. Those with a good, sound business plan that does not lose sight of where they are going, are the ones that 'win' in the end.

Keeping an open mind to costing/billing methods and being willing to consider changes to your business model/operating processes are the key to success. Rather than spending time worrying about what the photographer down the street charges, and makes. Time would be better spent re-assessing one's own business and in need making some changes.

[bigdazzler]

All I have to add (FWIW :confused013)

Mr Bigshot photographer has higher running costs, meaning he must charge more to be able to make a profit ?? Gotcha.
Mr Weekender down the street has a much simpler operation, costing less to run overall, and can afford to charge lower rates, allowing him to make money ?? Gotcha.

Now from a consumers point of view, lets use the vase analogy, that being that the product is of exactly the same quality, why would I buy from Mr. Bigshot fancy vase shop guy ?? I wouldnt. Im certainly not going out in sympathy and paying more because his costs are higher.

Now lets assume the photography is the same quality, just like the vases (Mr.Weekender down the street is actually a fantastic photographer !!), why would I go to Mr. Bigshot photographer guy ?? I wouldnt, for the same reasons as vase guy.

Operating costs and bottom line, net profit margins mean squat to anyone (ie. customers) other than the proprietor of the business. Its up to them to be able to run their business in the black by controlling/minimising running costs. Now in the case of these portrait photographers that feel hard done by part timers coming in and undercutting them, boo hoo. Why should the consumer pay more for an equivalent product just because it costs Mr. Bigshot photographer guy more to run his flashy studio ?? In the case of photography, savvy consumers will base their purchasing decisions on the end result alone ... the pictures. When people are on a tight budget, I doubt a flashy studio is going to sway someones ultimate decision. If the moneys not there, its not there.

However .. the caveat is .. this is all dependent on the quality of the work being on par .. if it isnt, obviously none of the above applies :D

My 2 cents anyway :)

[Bear Dale]

^ I agree BD why would the customer want to support MrBigshots photography when they could get the same result for 1/10th of the price.

[kiwi]

Dazz, I think that's a bit simplistic. The product cant be the same.

I dont think you can get an identical product. I do think that an average consumer might not see that difference side-by-side....but you know as well as I do that there's an element of creativity, conistency, equipment, colour balancing etc that goes into a final image that the better you are the better the result in your eyes and in the result (although the consumer might not know exactly why that image is just a little better)

Now, I agree that Mr Pro Photographer doing cookie-cutter Mr Pixie type photos isnt going to differentiate, I dont see that too much though. What I can tell you as a budding wedding photographer there's still a big gap to what I punch out compared to a FT Pro Wedding photographer. So, I have no issue charging say $1000 and have him charge $5000 for apparently the same product. I can see the value differential.

In addition, outside of the "product" there's of course the experience, the contigency and risk management if something doesnt go quite to plan, etc that a professional should deliver and recover costs for that may not always be apparent on face value.

I'll come back to the fact that I will never complain about what FT Pro's charge - I think they generally have to charge those amounts to make a sustainable business. If they are rorting, over charging etc then there's enough competition in their ranks to weed them out I'd say, or as much as in any other profession

I know there are rich photographers that charge 10's of thousands of dollars for a wedding. Good on them I say, it's a free market and they've probably worked hard and have the ability to sell that value to the Client....I bet most of their business is referral based too, so their clients obviously see value, even if it's just brand linking.

But I bet there are still a minority of photographers in the "higher" income earning brackets. I dont see exhorbitant pricing or charging by anyone apart from so called "weekend warriors" who maybe honestly shouldnt be charging in the first place.

[Longshots]

^ I agree BD why would the customer want to support MrBigshots photography when they could get the same result for 1/10th of the price.

As I said in the beginning, can you discuss it without this being offensive to either side of the fence.

I take offence as a pro to being referred to by the term "Mr Bigshot".

Its not necessary to have a discussion with this type of insult.

[Jules]

As I said in the beginning, can you discuss it without this being offensive to either side of the fence.

I take offence as a pro to being referred to by the term "Mr Bigshot".

Its not necessary to have a discussion with this type of insult.

William, I could be wrong, but I believe Jim was simply referring to one of the character names that Dazzler used in his version of the vase analogy.

[bigdazzler]

I take offence as a pro to being referred to by the term "Mr Bigshot".

Its not necessary to have a discussion with this type of insult.

I definitely wasnt referring to you William when I used the term in my post. I just want to clear that up. I also didnt use the term "pro" at all. I was simply alluding to the generic photographer with the flashier setup/ higher running costs etc ...

There seemed to be a pre-determined ideal earlier in the thread from another poster that the more resources you have the better the quality of product will be, by default. I disagree with that. The term Bigshot really was only meant to allude to the hypothetical photographer with the big shiny setup.

[zollo]

well put it this way for a change. 200 a shoot guy sees 2000 a shoot guy still gets work and says to himself - why am i only charging 200 a shoot?? he's been undercutting the industry standard for so long that if he wants to hike his prices up, he will start losing the money isnt there type customers. when you're in business, it's to do one thing - make money. he will not want to work 10 x as hard as the 2000a shoot guy believe me. Is he actually making a profit?? hardly. would he stay in business long? no.

thats why weekenders are not professional photographers I dont care how good their photos are. they are not in business. full stop. its not elite, its not bigshot, its business.

weekenders complaining that pros charge too much is just ridiculous. if you think you can go pro for less than an established pro, then I invite you to put your money where your mouth is. like I said before, lets compete on quality, not price.

[kiwi]

Zollo, (William will like this statement from me, lol) - as a weekend warrior I'd argue that I am in business though, all be it on a part time basis. Am I profit motivated though, sort of.....but it aint feeding my family, just my Nikon fetish.

[bigdazzler]

weekenders complaining that pros charge too much is just ridiculous.




thats why weekenders are not professional photographers I dont care how good their photos are. they are not in business. full stop.





I dont think anyone was. I thought it was the other way around ?? So let me ask, why does it bother the "pros" what the weekenders charge ? Why should it affect them if their product is so much better, and therefore why all the whining about undercutting ?

Commodores and ferraris mate .. there will always be people willing to pay for (and can afford) both. Same goes for photography, and as long as thats the case, the bottom feeder weekenders will survive, and some will even propser. Of course, prosperity is determined by the individual, your idea might be different to mine. And as I said before, some people are happy to make what they make. Does that mean they are not in business ??

What if a part timer sets himself up an ABN, gets himself some financial advice, develops a business plan, gets his insurances in place, does very little marketing or promotion and just works on word of mouth/referrals, and decides he only wants to work part time on weekends to subsidise a Monday to Friday regular income ?? Is he still not in business because he chooses to charge three figure sums instead of four ???

[kiwi]

dazzler

Evidence #1 from original post

"group or genre of professional photographers desperate to be able to keep charging, what to me, seemed like exorbitant fees for their work"

I agree with your other comments in general :-)

[Dan Cripps]

^ I agree BD why would the customer want to support MrBigshots photography when they could get the same result for 1/10th of the price.

Regardless of the end result (product), perhaps Mr Bigshots can provide an overall better experience... Perhaps that experience is worth paying for? Perhaps that experience is a catalyst in the referral of ongoing work to friends and family. Perhaps focussing on the end result is too narrow and simplistic.

There is an inherent value in experience.

Take wedding photography, for example. Two wedding photographers who can produce comparable work. One is friendly, enthusiastic and fun to have around. The other is aloof, negative and controlling. Despite their comparable level of photographic output, the experience plays a huge factor in determining which of those photographers is in higher demand and therefore able and justified in charging higher rates.

It's the same in domestic portraiture. The experience plays a key role in the inherent worth or value of the product.

[bigdazzler]

all very true Zeke .. and there will be people that will be willing to pay for that. But I assure you there are just as many that budget plays the biggest role in their purchasing decisions. Thats doesnt necessarily mean that they will not get what they are ultimately after, which is quality photographs. Thats the point.

And furthermore, a higher price tag doesnt necessarily guarantee a better experience either. In fact I could even argue the oppsosite. Ive attended plenty of wedding attended to by surly, sombre, even bored looking pro photographers ... and on the flip side ... Ive been to a couple where a young up and comer with little experience still loves what theyre doing so much that they have been a breath of fresh air .... so horses for courses I would suggest.

[bigdazzler]

when you're in business, it's to do one thing - make money.

with that attitude zollo ... as a photographer looking to hire a photographer .... I wouldnt hire you in a billion years mate.

You talk about "the experience" for the customer/client/consumer ? I hope that attitude doesnt leak out during your client meetings. It might fly with corporate work, but if you exhibit that mentality to Mum and Dad Average that come to get pictures of the kiddies, I reckon 9 times out of 10 youll lose the job. Theres a lot going for someone who works part time making really only a few dollars, but really doing it because they love it, as opposed to someone who is jaded by the business of it all, and has $$$ in their eyes. Provided the work was proven to be quality, I know which way Id go, and Im one of the ones that can afford the 2K guy. Food for thought.

[Bear Dale]

And furthermore, a higher price tag doesnt necessarily guarantee a better experience either. In fact I could even argue the oppsosite. Ive attended plenty of wedding attended to by surly, sombre, even bored looking pro photographers ... and on the flip side ... Ive been to a couple where a young up and comer with little experience still loves what theyre doing so much that they have been a breath of fresh air .... so horses for courses I would suggest.

I can speak with experience here. Last October my son and daughter in law were married. They interviewed 4 photographers and two of them were very expensive and long time wedding pros. From the onset their whole personality was just wanting.

They ended up going with a female photographer that was vibrant, friendly and very efficient. It was only her 10th wedding and she was 1/5th of the price. When she delivered 4 weeks after the wedding her work was excellent. The whole "package" couldn't be faulted.

[Dan Cripps]

That's great, Jim. It sounds like your son and daughter in law found the perfect mix of skill, personality and price. It's sometimes difficult to find all three in the one candidate.

[bigdazzler]

I can speak with experience here. Last October my son and daughter in law were married. They interviewed 4 photographers and two of them were very expensive and long time wedding pros. From the onset their whole personality was just wanting.

They ended up going with a female photographer that was vibrant, friendly and very efficient. It was only her 10th wedding and she was 1/5th of the price. When she delivered 4 weeks after the wedding her work was excellent. The whole "package" couldn't be faulted.

me too ... as some of you would know Im getting married in 6 weeks. I also met with all types of wedding photographers in Sydney when scouting for ours, ranging from $1200 in price to $6000. I found one full time wedding pro in particular to be just trying to milk more and more money out of me .... that was a very short meeting.

I ended up going with a young lady who runs a small business, based on a combination of her flexibility in being able to deliver what I wanted, her pricing, her wonderful personality and humility, and of course, the work presented to me.

I must have got lucky too.

Of course though, the proof will be in the pictures. At the end of the day, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, it doesnt matter one iota how great your experience is/was if the pictures are bad .. Ultimately, its ALL about the pictures. Thats all youve got left in the long run.

[Bear Dale]

That's great, Jim. It sounds like your son and daughter in law found the perfect mix of skill, personality and price. It's sometimes difficult to find all three in the one candidate.

They did do very well Zeke. There was the lady shooter and a second shooter around 19 years of age. They did the bride getting dressed, the cars, the church, the photo shoot at the farm and then the reception - all up 6 hours (12 hours for both shooters).

They handled the guests at the church and the reception like seasoned pros. She used ladders at the church and the farm.

The only thing I had to do was hurry my daughter in law along at the farm shoot. She wanted a lot of different shots in different locations. I think she forgot that she had a whole reception full of people waiting for her to make an entrance!

[Bear Dale]

me too ... as some of you would know Im getting married in 6 weeks.

Big Congrats!!!

:party6::party6::party6:

[bigdazzler]

Cheers mate ... busy times :eek:

And the most worrying part is that Bella is as cool as a cucumber ... Im waiting for the twister to hit :eek: :D

Anyway ... back on topic now :)

[Steve Axford]

I think the problem isn't about one professional photographer competing with another, it is about one professional photographer competing in a world where anyone can take a photo and they may not want to charge anything. If you are perceived as just taking photos, then you can't compete with that. You have to provide a service that the customer perceives cannot be got with a mobile phone. As one of those horrible MBA saying goes "Perception is reality". Of course it isn't in most things, but in marketing it really is. If the customer perceives that your photo is something special, then he will pay for it. Whether it is or not is irrelevant - though it may help.

[Bear Dale]

Quotes approved by AP moderators: <10% of work quoted for editorial/discussion purposes.


One question posed to the 5 photographers being interviewed was what the greatest threats facing the portrait pros in Australia is. A part of one photographers answer was -

"The greatest threat is DIY. They all think they can do the same job as we professionals can, They can all get their hands on a new high-end camera."

Another reply to the same question from a different photographer -

"It's the shoot and burn photographers. I wonder if it is simply because they are just not educated enough"

Part of another answer by another photographer -

"This lazy, give your soul away for nothing with the files attitude is slowly killing this industry.....
....The answer to that problem is is educating the photographers, but the photographers we want to educate, I fear are not listening or simply do not want to listen".


This is just a tiny part of the two part (over two issues) article, but a fair majority of the answers were along those lines of being undercut by the shoot and burners.

One more snippet was - " What we are up against is the back-yarders, the shoot and burn, who are in it to make a quick buck".


I'm not sure why there is so much disdain for what they deem as the "back-yarders" being cheaper. It seems to me that they are squirming a little in their seats because the same product seems to be being sold down the road for a fraction of what they're charging and they feel that it makes them look like they are over charging their clients.

The bit about educating other photographers I take to read as - educating them in their PRICING and to NOT give away files. Also the "make a quick buck" comment was, to me at least, derogatry. I can't see why a "back-yarder" can't be as professional as a "pro" in their service and end product.

[Dan Cripps]

It seems to me that they are squirming a little in their seats because the same product seems to be being sold down the road for a fraction of what they're charging and they feel that it makes them look like they are over charging their clients.

Your perception, I think, is a little off.

You're projecting a sense of insecurity onto the full timers which I don't think is the base issue. I don't know anyone who is squirming in their seats because Barry Backyarder is doing portrait shoot and burns for $200 including a disc. You're making many assumptions.

Has the emergence of the 'weekend warrior' frightened the full time pros? No, not really. Has it annoyed them, yes, probably. For good reason, I think.

I guess at the end of the day you have two groups who see the same situation from two distinct perspectives.

The full timers seem to believe that the weekenders drastically undervalue their work, and charge accordingly. The weekenders seem to believe that the full timers drastically overvalue their work and charge accordingly.

Maybe there is some common ground somewhere in the middle?

What is evident to me (as a full time pro) is this, however: If $200 shoot and burns somehow became the norm, it would be the death of the full time professional portrait photographer. You can not build a viable full time business on that model. I challenge anyone to give me an example of someone who has done it. I'll happily eat humble pie. I'll even send them a congratulatory email. :)

[zollo]

Quotes approved by AP moderators: <10% of work quoted for editorial/discussion purposes.


One question posed to the 5 photographers being interviewed was what the greatest threats facing the portrait pros in Australia is. A part of one photographers answer was -

"The greatest threat is DIY. They all think they can do the same job as we professionals can, They can all get their hands on a new high-end camera."

Another reply to the same question from a different photographer -

"It's the shoot and burn photographers. I wonder if it is simply because they are just not educated enough"

Part of another answer by another photographer -

"This lazy, give your soul away for nothing with the files attitude is slowly killing this industry.....
....The answer to that problem is is educating the photographers, but the photographers we want to educate, I fear are not listening or simply do not want to listen".


This is just a tiny part of the two part (over two issues) article, but a fair majority of the answers were along those lines of being undercut by the shoot and burners.

One more snippet was - " What we are up against is the back-yarders, the shoot and burn, who are in it to make a quick buck".


I'm not sure why there is so much disdain for what they deem as the "back-yarders" being cheaper. It seems to me that they are squirming a little in their seats because the same product seems to be being sold down the road for a fraction of what they're charging and they feel that it makes them look like they are over charging their clients.

The bit about educating other photographers I take to read as - educating them in their PRICING and to NOT give away files. Also the "make a quick buck" comment was, to me at least, derogatry. I can't see why a "back-yarder" can't be as professional as a "pro" in their service and end product.

well why do weekenders charge at all, if not to make a dollar?? at least I have set up a business and done everything by the books and freely admit that I have done this to be able to work (and thus make money) in the field i love... photography. and trust me i'm not jaded or arrogant or even worried about the backyarders. at all.

bigdazzler you freely admit to making a buck with your weekend work, to augment your full time income - and then you say i have a bad attitude by admitting that my business is there to make money?? how does that work??

[Kym]

It's an interesting debate. My only real life experience...

The weekenders can and often do produce an excellent product and may have other motivations other than money.
I was 2nd tog at a wedding last year, and did most of the reception.
As it was my first wedding (probably last) and they were family friends on a low budget I did my bit for $0 and made it the wedding gift.
The 1st tog was a weekender, again a family friend who had done more than a dozen weddings and was building a good portfolio.

Was the happy couple happy with the final product - yes!

Did I find out that I would rather just be a guest than a 'tog at a wedding YES!

Easy to use technology has changed the game forever.

It also reflects in the music and movie industries trying to come to grips with the 'net.
Bittorrent and copy infringement means they either change their business model or fight a losing battle to maintain their old content distribution methods.

In either case the answer is to provide an innovative quality value proposition to the market.

[Bear Dale]

well why do weekenders charge at all, if not to make a dollar??

Of course it's to make a dollar. I do see the added "quick" in this quote
" What we are up against is the back-yarders, the shoot and burn, who are in it to make a quick buck" as somewhat adding a distasteful overture by the use of that one single word.

[Jules]

Interesting discussion so far. A couple of thoughts:

The photography industry is just that - an industry. And like every other industry you have people providing services anywhere on the scale of 'big dollars, fine art product, super professional photography' to 'first wedding, using a bridge camera, here's a CD of files for $50 photography'. Yes, the explosion of digital photography has made it easier for 'weekend' togs to emerge, but I'm pretty sure there were photographers around in film days prepared to provide services on the cheap.

Let's not forget that photographers are selling their services to clients, not to other photographers (for the most part - somone like Dazz being the exception). There are always going to be some clients prepared to pay top dollar for the super professional photography experience and there will be others who can only afford, or only want to afford the $200 weekend shooter with the Rebel and kit lens. That's just the way it is. And as long as the client group remains diverse, there will always be opportunities for photographers at both ends of the scale. And in between.

[zollo]

Of course it's to make a dollar. I do see the added "quick" in this quote as somewhat adding a distasteful overture by the use of that one single word.

no worries JimD, i'm not gonna say weekenders are all there for the quick buck. but I will say that many undercharge, for what would be work good enough to be paid properly for. so is that a win for the backyarder? no. a win for the industry? no. but weekenders dont find that out until they try to go pro. And a question to those who undercharge - why do you feel that your work is good enough to charge for, but is it not good enough to charge industry standard rates for?? what do you gain by charging less?? any answers?

I guess that article is trying to say that backyarders are hurting the industry in which professionals have a vested interest in keeping healthy.

[Dan Cripps]

In my experience the biggest stumbling block to anyone (full time or otherwise) charging properly for their work is fear.

[I @ M]

zollo, I would like to hear how you define "industry standard rates".

[bigdazzler]

bigdazzler you freely admit to making a buck with your weekend work, to augment your full time income - and then you say i have a bad attitude by admitting that my business is there to make money?? how does that work??

I have said many times that any money make is a bonus and goes towards offsetting the cost of my gear .. Im not in it to make a profit. Im grateful for anything I make.

You stated .. the only reason you are in business is to make money.

Thats how that works. Two totally different statements and objectives. I dont see the confusion really. I stand by what i said though. If I met with you and you came across as one of those people that are only concerned with getting my money (which you freely admitted that that is your only one objective in business .. what about client satisfaction and producing good images for your customers ?? I would have thought that was worth a mention .. but nevermind) .. just like the wedding tog i met with, it would be a shot meeting and you wouldnt be getting my money.

Thats how its different. I dont rely on making money from my photography, whereas you do. Maybe its skewed your perspective a little, I dunno, but you said it.

[bigdazzler]

Has the emergence of the 'weekend warrior' frightened the full time pros? No, not really. Has it annoyed them, yes, probably. For good reason, I think.


Thats ridiculous. Why should it annoy them ?? Thats like saying BMW are annoyed at Hyundai for selling cars in the same neighbourhood. If they are so confident that theyre product is so superior, as you and zollo both seem to believe is the case, why should they be annoyed ?? :confused013 The simple facts are the market is there for both high end photography and entry level packaging and pricing. Its the way it is, and it aint gonna change.

[zollo]

zollo, I would like to hear how you define "industry standard rates".

this I define as an accepted and common price range within the Professional Photographic industry. As a business owner, I'm all across what my competitors and associates within the industry charge for a particular job/hour/day/shoot. And they are all familiar with what I charge.

[zollo]

.. what about client satisfaction and producing good images for your customers ?? .

obviously you're not in business, but the above is a given before you even consider starting one up:th3:

[bigdazzler]

Let's not forget that photographers are selling their services to clients, not to other photographers

exxxxxactly Jules ... :th3: I would suggest that average Joe consumer would fail to see a sufficient benefit in paying 10 times the quote, when to their eye the pictures simply are not 10 times better. Again, obviously dependent on Mr. Weekender producing outstanding images. Thats my take anyway.

[bigdazzler]

obviously you're not in business, but the above is a given before you even consider starting one up:th3:

A given yes, absolutely. I just found it interesting you chose to focus on the profits in your post, maybe an indication of your priorities and motivation in business :th3:

[zollo]

A given yes, absolutely. I just found it interesting you chose to focus on the profits in your post, maybe an indication of your priorities and motivation in business :th3:

well yes, you are in the "business of photography" section.

[bigdazzler]

this I define as an accepted and common price range within the Professional Photographic industry. As a business owner, I'm all across what my competitors and associates within the industry charge for a particular job/hour/day/shoot. And they are all familiar with what I charge.

so an agreed price amongst full time photographers ?? Almost amounts to price fixing doesnt it ?? Who are you to tell other people what to charge just because it doesnt suit you ?? That is astounding mate.

[zollo]

if you think so. I would like to hear how weekenders come up with their pricing?? any takers?

[Dan Cripps]

Thats ridiculous. Why should it annoy them ?? Thats like saying BMW are annoyed at Hyundai for selling cars in the same neighbourhood. If they are so confident that theyre product is so superior, as you and zollo both seem to believe is the case, why should they be annoyed ?? :confused013 The simple facts are the market is there is a market for both high end photography and entry level packaging and pricing. Its the way it is, and it aint gonna change.

The BMW v Hyundai analogy is what is ridiculous. It's wholly irrelevant and nonsensical.

The vast majority of part time shooters' pricing models are arbitrary at best. That's cause for annoyance for anyone who has dedicated their working life to establishing and running a professional business. Actually, I should clarify - sometimes it's cause for amusement rather than annoyance. :)

In the case of talented shooters who actually posses some semblance of skill and ability, it is definitely annoying. Why would anyone sell themselves short? Surely they wouldn't do it knowingly? Either their pricing is based on ignorance or fear.

[bigdazzler]

obviously you're not in business, but the above is a given before you even consider starting one up:th3:

No youre right im not, but ill give you a hint of my situation. I keep detailed records of any compensation I receive from my hobby, just for my own amusement, and I made just on five figures from my photography 09/10, enough to cover my gear, and have a little bit left over. So I am doing OK, and Im happy. It seems the people I photograph for are happy as well, as EVERYTHING I do comes from word of mouth and someone telling someone else something about what I do. See the thing is though I make much much more from my real job, and to be honest I dont wanna ruin the fun of my hobby, and start worrying about money, as opposed to being happy and grateful when I make some :)

Im not being argumentative mate ... its OK for us to disagree on where we think the value is in the industry :th3:

[bigdazzler]

The BMW v Hyundai analogy is what is ridiculous. It's wholly irrelevant and nonsensical.

The vast majority of part time shooters' pricing models are arbitrary at best. That's cause for annoyance for anyone who has dedicated their working life to establishing and running a professional business. Actually, I should clarify - sometimes it's cause for amusement rather than annoyance. :)

In the case of talented shooters who actually posses some semblance of skill and ability, it is definitely annoying. Why would anyone sell themselves short? Surely they wouldn't do it knowingly? Either their pricing is based on ignorance or fear.

should we feel bad for you then ?? Isnt it up to you to adapt and cater for the people that dont wanna spend thousands of dollars on photos. :rolleyes: If you choose not to thats ok too, but why whinge and whine about it ??

[bigdazzler]

if you think so. I would like to hear how weekenders come up with their pricing?? any takers?

Is that your answer ?? I notice you didnt refute my statement though. It does doesnt it ??

Yep ... I am happy to make what I make for what Im doing, and whatever the person needs are, on a case by case basis. I do have a base hourly rate that I work around though. Is that the same rate as the other weekend guys ?? Who knows, dont care. If that annoys you, many apologies. My perogative though. Bear in mind mate, my grocery bill doesnt depend on it, so I dont think about it too much deeper than that .. its all jam for me ;)

[I @ M]

this I define as an accepted and common price range within the Professional Photographic industry. As a business owner, I'm all across what my competitors and associates within the industry charge for a particular job/hour/day/shoot. And they are all familiar with what I charge.

Certain terms and phrases make me wonder about the whole pricing matter, your wording of accepted and common raise questions to me of by whom are they accepted and common.
Obviously a proportion of the paying public are not accepting them or finding them common, they are simply moving on and purchasing services outside of the accepted and common sphere.

It also raises the question of once again defining someone who is within the Professional Photographic (your capitalisation) industry. Seeing as there are no actual legislative requirements for people to beholden to before they call themselves a professional and no limitations on how high (or low) one can charge for photographic services rendered I am forming the opinion that entire market has changed and it is only those who can't / won't adjust their pricing downward that are feeling hard done by.

I look at it as evolution and we all know what happened to species that simply didn't adapt to changing times that were forced upon them in the life cycle scenario.

[zollo]

Is that your answer ?? I notice you didnt refute my statement though. It does doesnt it ??

Yep ... I am happy to make what I make for what Im doing, and whatever the person needs are, on a case by case basis. I do have a base hourly rate that I work around though. Is that the same rate as the other weekend guys ?? Who knows, dont care. If that annoys you, many apologies. My perogative though. Bear in mind mate, my grocery bill doesnt depend on it, so I dont think about it too much deeper than that .. its all jam for me ;)

I didn't refute. dont see the point. everything from your weekend paper to your fuel and groceries will be within 15% of each other. even bmw vs mercedes vs audi i think you'll find. (for similar markets - of course).

[zollo]

Certain terms and phrases make me wonder about the whole pricing matter, your wording of accepted and common raise questions to me of by whom are they accepted and common.
Obviously a proportion of the paying public are not accepting them or finding them common, they are simply moving on and purchasing services outside of the accepted and common sphere.

It also raises the question of once again defining someone who is within the Professional Photographic (your capitalisation) industry. Seeing as there are no actual legislative requirements for people to beholden to before they call themselves a professional and no limitations on how high (or low) one can charge for photographic services rendered I am forming the opinion that entire market has changed and it is only those who can't / won't adjust their pricing downward that are feeling hard done by.

I look at it as evolution and we all know what happened to species that simply didn't adapt to changing times that were forced upon them in the life cycle scenario.

I'm not doubting it puts downward pressure on certain market segments, but is that what anyone making money from photography wants, including the weekender?? even for the weekend "price saviour" it will get to the point where they are being asked to do a shoot for $10 bucks and then what?? will you give up your saturday to shoot a model for $10 bucks just for the love of it, gotta be kidding me... and yourself

and dont think pro's arent willing to change with the market quickly. If the price drops to an unacceptable level to maintain an income i'll just start pumping work through quicker at a new low price - because I already have the resources to do that. where will it leave weekenders? see above

[Kym]

In the case of talented shooters who actually posses some semblance of skill and ability, it is definitely annoying. Why would anyone sell themselves short? Surely they wouldn't do it knowingly? Either their pricing is based on ignorance or fear.

Can I suggest a few other reasons...
a) gaining experienced
b) for the fun of it
c) pocket money (as opposed to an income)

[I @ M]

Rather than looking at it as putting downward pressure upon the upper echelon of the business sector I think that it should be considered that a new base level at which people are happy to operate at is being formed.

I think you will find that the weekender isn't having to adjust downward, he is setting his price to cover his costs and put a few $$ in the bank as profit to fund his next GAS hit. The price that he charges may well be the next accepted and common level within the whole industry.
Verily interesting would it be to see the actual numbers of "photographers" who are operating as paid shooters in Sept 2010 compared to say Sept 1990.
As I said, evolution, the population increases and the adaptable prosper, the rest perish.

[TOM]

Remember (and I could be wrong here) Capture Magazine is provided free to AIPP members

there it is right there. Most magazines content is a direct result of advertiser/sponsors, and Capture is no exception. If you are looking for unbiased, open minded, original articles, Capture isn't where you should be looking.

[zollo]

Rather than looking at it as putting downward pressure upon the upper echelon of the business sector I think that it should be considered that a new base level at which people are happy to operate at is being formed.

I think you will find that the weekender isn't having to adjust downward, he is setting his price to cover his costs and put a few $$ in the bank as profit to fund his next GAS hit. The price that he charges may well be the next accepted and common level within the whole industry. Verily interesting would it be to see the actual numbers of "photographers" who are operating as paid shooters in Sept 2010 compared to say Sept 1990.
As I said, evolution, the population increases and the adaptable prosper, the rest perish.

see my reply above. interestingly, something similar happened in my trade, furniture making. everyone was crying foul at the price of solid timber furniture. then came the evolution - CHINA. boatloads of imports of furniture. the industry cried foul - we cant compete - then adapted. now imported boatloads of chinese furniture. then surprise, surprise people were sick of cheap flimsy chinese furniture and the small boutiques that stuck it out were selling high end furniture - charging more than ever for handcrafted quality:th3: i think i'll stay put, cheers anyway. and all the best with the lower pricing

p.s. you wont find me complaining with my lot either.

[Dan Cripps]

a) gaining experienced
If it's genuine, do it for free.


b) for the fun of it
If it's genuine, do it for free.


c) pocket money (as opposed to an income)
More pocket money is better than less pocket money. If it's not about money, why not do it for free?

[Dan Cripps]

should we feel bad for you then ?? Isnt it up to you to adapt and cater for the people that dont wanna spend thousands of dollars on photos. :rolleyes: If you choose not to thats ok too, but why whinge and whine about it ??

I really don't understand why you have to be condescending. :rolleyes:

I'm not whinging or whining, just trying to offer some insight into the psyche of a working professional. I mistakenly thought it might be helpful. Apologies for trying.

[ricktas]

I wonder how many members. Pro or not, have walked into their local Harvey Norman, etc looking for a big screen LCD screen and during the negotiations have asked "Is that the best price you can do me?". In business everyone want to make sure their bottom line is in the black and they are doing reasonably well. but as consumers, those very same people are happy to try and get a cut when they are doing the buying.

Me thinks, you cannot have it both ways!

[Kym]

Remember (and I could be wrong here) Capture Magazine is provided free to AIPP members
there it is right there. Most magazines content is a direct result of advertiser/sponsors, and Capture is no exception. If you are looking for unbiased, open minded, original articles, Capture isn't where you should be looking.
Capture Mag is not free, it is a discount offer deal.
http://www.aipp.com.au/aipphome.php?ID=325&cat=Join&A=

[Kym]

If it's genuine, do it for free.

Done that!


If it's genuine, do it for free.

Done that!


More pocket money is better than less pocket money. If it's not about money, why not do it for free?
Anything is better than nothing.
I've done a couple events for pocket money and experience. Everyone was happy.

[I @ M]

zollo, the term "accepted and common price range" is your terminology, I don't happen to believe that there is such a thing. I rather think that those that say there is an "accepted and common price range" are trying to reinforce and market their own beliefs to be seen as the only legitimate entity.

As far as an analogy with imported furniture I fail to see a comparison. Cheap furniture, manufactured under third world conditions and imported by businessmen literally by the ship load is a bit different to someone going out with the financial ability to buy current technology in camera gear, be able to run a full / part time business and maybe even maybe have a healthy dose of photographic ability.

The main point of all this is that people who are used to making a living from photography are obviously feeling uncomfortable enough with the increase in numbers of part time / weekend togs to give voice to their concerns through the press.
I am not hearing howls of outrage against cheaper prices from consumers nor am I hearing "this day tonight" style revelations of dodgy togs dudding the unsuspecting public on a much greater basis than in the past.

[zollo]

zollo, the term "accepted and common price range" is your terminology, I don't happen to believe that there is such a thing. I rather think that those that say there is an "accepted and common price range" are trying to reinforce and market their own beliefs to be seen as the only legitimate entity.


i'm not trying for anything. what I've told you is how I price structure, along with other working photographers that I know of. I dont pluck a figure from the air like Bigdazzler and then say I dont care what others are charging. that is not a lasting business plan.
as for the analogy with furniture - i've set up a business for long term, I wont be following any trends or the "next accepted and common level within the whole industry" just yet. like what happened in furniture.

I'd like to know what you do consider this "legitimate entity" for pricing within the industry then. the customers? well they ask for quotes, they generally have an idea, but at the end of the day the final figure is mine to quote. the weekenders??

[Kym]

This is the other side of it; when a wedding tog has no idea...

js7RzcdDcMs

:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Brown_%28judge%29

[Jules]

...In the case of talented shooters who actually posses some semblance of skill and ability, it is definitely annoying. Why would anyone sell themselves short? Surely they wouldn't do it knowingly? Either their pricing is based on ignorance or fear.

Yes, it's probably fear. There would be plenty of talented shooters who undercharge when they first start out simply because they're not confident enough to charge the big bucks yet. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm not sure why it would be annoying to established photographers who already have their businesses up and running. As I pointed out earlier, there will always be a range of clients looking for services at different price points. I really doubt that those people who pay $200 for a shoot 'n' burn wedding were ever considering hiring the $10,000 per wedding professional, so it's not like that pro tog has lost a sale.

And let's not forget that everyone starts somewhere. I'd be very surprised if most of the super pro photographers we have in this country (and elsewhere) didn't do a few cheap jobs when they were first starting out.

[Dan Cripps]

I'm not sure why it would be annoying to established photographers who already have their businesses up and running.

Observing someone else's unrealised potential is always annoying.

[Jules]

Observing someone else's unrealised potential is always annoying.

Give 'em some time!

[Dan Cripps]

Give 'em some time!

Well I know I can't give any advice! I certainly don't want a brigade of photography forum members thinking I'm elitist, insecure, price-fixing or running scared... :efelant:

[Jules]

About time the dancing pink efelant turned up in this thread. It's all been a bit too serious 'til this point. Quite fascinating, but too serious. :D

[Redgum]

I just got home from a dinner with my regional bank manager who was complaining that their profits had dropped from $2 billion to $1.9 billion this year. (I was in tears :action003: ) Then I read this thread. Bring it on - the more amateurs out there the better. My income and profit has almost doubled over the last few years from magazine/newspaper and other related photography business simply because all the real buyers out there are looking for professional jobs and continuity. In this respect 99.9% of amateurs can't earn their bus fare on a regular basis from mainstream work and are really no threat to the industry. Those who can earn an income deserve to be there and that's how it should be. Reward for effort.
Being both a magazine publisher and a contributor (and Rick I don't believe there is any publishing bias in the article referred to) I would say the whole industry is competitive and the reporter was simply looking for an angle that appealed to the readers. Silly if he didn't because publishing articles that have no sense of controversy is a sure way to go broke.

[Gremlin]

On a side note, I wonder how many actually went out and bought this mag to read the article?

[bigdazzler]

I dont pluck a figure from the air like Bigdazzler and then say I dont care what others are charging. that is not a lasting business plan.

As a person relying on your entire income (Im assuming) from your photography I would expect nothing less from you mate. But you and I are in completely different positions, I do what I do, because I can. Who knows, I may sell my cameras and start breeding alpackers anytime, so I have no need for a long term plan.

If I stop making money tomorrow, thats OK, no big deal, I still got my hobby, and my fun :) and as Zeke suggested earlier, I will happily continue to take pictures for people for free, why not ?? I do TF on ModelMayhem occasionally now anyway, so all good, no worries.. Its all fun.

Its all very simple for me zollo, thats why I am able to assess each situation as it arises, and charge what I think is fair for both me and the client (Im loathe to use that word "client" in the fear that you may feel I dont have the right to .. ;))

Anyways .. its been a healthy discussion, and didnt get out of hand, which is nice :) but there is obviously two very differing sides to this whole argument and its one we may just need to A2D on. All good. :)

[ricktas]

I think there seems to be a confusion as to what demographic photographers are marketing themselves to here.

A Pro Photographer who is charging $2000.00 for portraiture should be very aware of their market segment, how large it is, what ethnicities, age groups etc. They should know their market, end of story! After all that is their market. If they do not understand what their target market is, how the hell can they market to those that are willing to pay $2000 for a portrait session.

Those photographers charging $200.00 have an advantage here, they seem to know their market. They know that there are a LOT of people out there who cannot afford $2000.00 and they have jumped in and taken advantage of that.

The Pro's in the article seem to be begrudging the $200.00 photographer, but they are not interested in joining them at that market level. Why do they feel the need to make the comments they have, when from what appears to be their own admission, they are not out to garner that segment of the market.

I suggest that these Pro's really have no idea what their market demographic is, and probably have no idea how to market to distinct segments of the community. I see no point in lamenting the $200.00 photographer when that customer base is never likely to have the money to pay for a $2000.00 session, and therefore the Pro is not losing a customer at all, cause they never had the customer in the first place, and are never likely to.

Storm in a teacup, when the teacup hasn't been checked to see if it is made in China, and picked up at a $2.00 shop, or a limited edition Royal Wedgewood (with hand painted perriwinkles)

[bigdazzler]

Those photographers charging $200.00 have an advantage here, they seem to know their market. They know that there are a LOT of people out there who cannot afford $2000.00 and they have jumped in and taken advantage of that.

;)



The Pro's in the article seem to be begrudging the $200.00 photographer, but they are not interested in joining them at that market level. Why do they feel the need to make the comments they have, when from what appears to be their own admission, they are not out to garner that segment of the market.

enter my previous comment about why all the whining ? :rolleyes::confused013


I suggest that these Pro's really have no idea what their market demographic is, and probably have no idea how to market to distinct segments of the community.

uh oh .. hope you got your flame suit ready mate :Doh::D

[Dan Cripps]

I suggest that these Pro's really have no idea what their market demographic is, and probably have no idea how to market to distinct segments of the community. I see no point in lamenting the $200.00 photographer when that customer base is never likely to have the money to pay for a $2000.00 session, and therefore the Pro is not losing a customer at all, cause they never had the customer in the first place, and are never likely to.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. I've had clients who have used $200 shoot and burners in the past and then spent ten times that with me. What market segment do they fall in?

I would suggest that the only ones truly qualified to offer informed opinions are those who have experienced both sides of the fence. Those photographers who started out as part time amateurs and managed to progress into the full time professional ranks.

Either side (and I'm loathe to describe it as such) taking pot shots at the other without an understanding and appreciation for the other's unique situation is just silliness.

[ricktas]

I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. I've had clients who have used $200 shoot and burners in the past and then spent ten times that with me. What market segment do they fall in?

I would suggest that the only ones truly qualified to offer informed opinions are those who have experienced both sides of the fence. Those photographers who started out as part time amateurs and managed to progress into the full time professional ranks.

Either side (and I'm loathe to describe it as such) taking pot shots at the other without an understanding and appreciation for the other's unique situation is just silliness.

Yep, but how many others who pay $200.00 could not even consider paying $2000.00? Yes there might be the occasional one, but there is a huge demographic out there that can't, and why should they be denied the opportunity to have some professional photos taken just cause their income is at the lower end of the scale? I agree with your statement about pot-shots. The entire article does nothing to promote photography as such, rather it comes across as sour grapes. Not a good article at all in my view! It smacks of elitism!

[Dan Cripps]

Yep, but how many others who pay $200.00 could not even consider paying $2000.00? Yes there might be the occasional one, but there is a huge demographic out there that can't, and why should they be denied the opportunity to have some professional photos taken just cause their income is at the lower end of the scale?

No one is denied anything. The notion that a lower income person can't afford higher priced photography is, again, overly simplistic. I believe it comes down to priorities. We have many clients who wouldn't be considered high income earners, but they value good photography and are prepared to invest in it. They love the experience and rave about the results. In fact, we have found that the middle class earners, in general, spend more than their high income earning counterparts.

We don't compete with other photographers. Certainly not on price. We compete with Harvey Norman and the new 50" 3D LCD TV our potential client has been eyeing off. What we are talking about is the battle for the discretionary dollar. We would (obviously) rather someone invest in beautiful portraiture than drop their money on a new plasma TV.

A question, are lower income earners denied the latest and greatest in home audio visual?


I agree with your statement about pot-shots. The entire article does nothing to promote photography as such, rather it comes across as sour grapes. Not a good article at all in my view! It smacks of elitism!

I've not read the article in question so I've avoided discussing it directly. I'm more interested in the general discussion it sparked.

[ricktas]

No one is denied anything. The notion that a lower income person can't afford higher priced photography is, again, overly simplistic. I believe it comes down to priorities. We have many clients who wouldn't be considered high income earners, but they value good photography and are prepared to invest in it. They love the experience and rave about the results. In fact, we have found that the middle class earners, in general, spend more than their high income earning counterparts.

We don't compete with other photographers. Certainly not on price. We compete with Harvey Norman and the new 50" 3D LCD TV our potential client has been eyeing off. What we are talking about is the battle for the discretionary dollar. We would (obviously) rather someone invest in beautiful portraiture than drop their money on a new plasma TV.

A question, are lower income earners denied the latest and greatest in home audio visual?



I've not read the article in question so I've avoided discussing it directly. I'm more interested in the general discussion it sparked.


A question in return! Do you offer a 3 year interest free payment plan on portraiture?

[Dan Cripps]

A question in return! Do you offer a 3 year interest free payment plan on portraiture?

No, but we do offer lay-by and it's an extremely popular payment method. :)

[ricktas]

No, but we do offer lay-by and it's an extremely popular payment method. :)

Good on you. But I would suggest that if other Pro's do the same, it is not something they advertise. I have not once seen an ad for a wedding photographer where they have advertised payment plans/lay-by as an option. Maybe that is the key to not losing out to some 'week-end' photographer? There could be a whole untapped market out there, that has no idea they can do this, but the photographers in the article would rather whinge publicly, than work at generating a new revenue stream, that ultimately could prove to be very lucrative to them.

[bigdazzler]

The facts are there are people out there that would definitely like some quality pictures of their children, but mate people are doing it tough, and simply cannot even comtemplate spending thousands of dollars for the privelege, even if they wanted to ... where should they go ?? Spending 2 grand is spending 2 grand Zeke .. whether its in a lump sum or paying off a layby over 3 months. There is a huge sector of people that just cannot justify that for photographs. It doesnt mean they dont appreciate the product, it just might mean that the money is simply not there to be spent.

The point is why should good photography be out of reach for certain people .. why cant the market exist at both ends of the scale and we all live happily ever after. Everyone gets the product they want (or can afford) and its all good.

The part timers or entry level photographers arent whining about the pros or their existence, its the other way around. Thats what I find amusing.

[Dan Cripps]

The facts are there are people out there that would definitely like some quality pictures of their children, but mate people are doing it tough, and simply cannot even comtemplate spending thousands of dollars for the privelege, even if they wanted to ... where should they go ?? Spending 2 grand is spending 2 grand Zeke .. whether its in a lump sum or paying off a layby over 3 months. There is a huge sector of people that just cannot justify that for photographs. It doesnt mean they dont appreciate the product, it just might mean that the money is simply not there to be spent.

The point is why should good photography be out of reach for certain people .. why cant the market exist at both ends of the scale and we all live happily ever after. Everyone gets the product they want (or can afford) and its all good.

I appreciate that, I really do. I was simply sharing my real world experience. People from all walks of life will spend money on things they value.

My stance is very simple. I refuse to pre-judge anyone. I refuse to decide what people can and can't afford for them. I find that notion offensive. I offer a product that is priced for very specific reasons and I'm totally open and transparent about it.

Who are you to decide what people can and can't or afford or what value they should place on photography?


The part timers or entry level photographers arent whining about the pros or their existence, its the other way around. Thats what I find amusing.

For some strange reason you seem to enjoy this gross generalisation, as you keep repeating it. Perhaps the thought of full time pros being intimidated by part timers strokes your ego?

As I've said ad nauseam, it's simply not the case. If it makes you feel good to believe it, go ahead, though.

[bigdazzler]

For some strange reason you seem to enjoy this gross generalisation, as you keep repeating it. Perhaps the thought of full time pros being intimidated by part timers strokes your ego?

As I've said ad nauseam, it's simply not the case. If it makes you feel good to believe it, go ahead, though.

but thats what the article, and the OP is all about mate ?? *sigh*

Anyway .. Im bored now.

[kiwi]

I believe the concern (if there is a general one) is the weekenders comperting in the $2000 wedding space with dramatically lower apparent overheads, not the $200 one.

[Redgum]

The definition of retailing = Extracting the maximum amount of dollars for the least amount of effort.
It's a fact of life in every industry and Gerry Harvey would explain it better and this is where some Pro's have it all over the wantabees. Morality is rarely part of the equation or otherwise you would be paying $50 for the latest 3D LCD.

[Jules]

I believe the concern (if there is a general one) is the weekenders comperting in the $2000 wedding space with dramatically lower apparent overheads, not the $200 one.

The overheads of individual photographers is of no concern to their prospective clients and nor should it be. If the final product is the same in terms of quality (and that's quality as perceived by the clients, not by other photographers), then clients are going to make their choice based on dollar value. Can't blame them for that. We all want to make our dollars go further!

[Bear Dale]

This quote from the magazine -


"The greatest threat is DIY. They all think they can do the same job as we professionals can, They can all get their hands on a new high-end camera."


is the one I feel the most telling.

A Plumber Drainer and Gas Fitter needs to find an employer willing to take him on for a four year apprenticeship. He needs to attend and pass 4-6 years (including additional licenses) of TAFE College before becoming a fully licensed tradesman and able to charge Master Plumber rates and work alone and then be able to employ his own apprentice if needed.

If he was to find out that an unlicensed handyman down the road was undercutting him by 70% for hooking people up to the sewer, hooking up gas or installing hot water systems, he would be legitimately miffed that an unlicensed cowboy was not only doing illegal work, but putting peoples lives in danger.

A professional photographer on the other hand is working in a totally unregulated industry. Anyone can call themselves a professional photographer and take out ads in a paper, print up letter heads and business cards.

I think this is the very crux of the debate.



"The greatest threat is DIY. They all think they can do the same job as we professionals can, They can all get their hands on a new high-end camera."



And again in reference to that quote again.....well I have seen work done by 'amateurs' that is as good and IMO better than the best work that was submitted by the professionals for this article.

If you choose to go into an unregulated industry with your eyes fully open.....it's a bit rich IMO to bitch on about people being able to produce the same product that your trying to flog using the same tools that are available at every Harvey Norman, Joyce Mayne or Bing Lee et al.

I think that if pros think its bad now.....well the future doesn't hold much to be enthusiastic about.

[terry.langham]

I work in the mid-high end of a different 'luxury' (as opposed to necessity) industry, and over the last few years have noticed a significant decline in the higher end of the market. Thats not to say it has shifted to the lower end, more that people just aren't spending money in the more expensive market. I suspect the same is happening with most 'luxury' industries. Things have gotten tight for a lot of people and the money simply isn't there to spend on anything that isn't necessary.

Again, as Rick has already stated, it comes down to knowing your market, and how it is growing/declining, and adapting to the changes or targeting a different share of the market.

[virgal_tracy]

I am coming into this late after following the discussion for the last couple of days.

I won't quote all of the posts that I want to argue with but will try to summarise.

Longshots started the discussions about the costs to the phtographer and therefore being able to compare apples to apples. This certainly applies to the wedding and portrait togs. A full time pro has overheads that must be met so that he can support his price point. A weekend warrior (WW) does also but theirs will be different.

A WW does not have to earn a living, cover costs etc so can compete at the lower end. The price they set may well be considered and arrived at by careful consideration of all factors for their business. A FT pro will obviously have greater costs.

The difference between a WW and FT pro may also be in how they structure packages.

A WW charges $200 for a portrait sitting and may or may not include a disc of the images and then hope to make print, album, canvas sales to boost their income. The $2000 tog may include a lot of this already in the packages that they sell.

It is not only price but business models as well that will determine perceived value.

as has been stated earlier there will always be customers for different segments of the industry.

[Kym]

I won't quote all of the posts that I want to argue with but will try to summarise.

There is also the quality of work question.
The WW can and often does produce equivalent or better than the FT.
The risk is that the WW standards vary whereas a FT is generally more consistent.

Further there is the attitude issue.
Again the WW is in some cases shown to be more engaging and motivated.

Reiterating my fist post in this thread...


The industry is under change.
Low cost easy to use photography means many more people will take photos.
Some of them will learn from experience and the 'net (sites like AP) and produce some damn fine photos.
Some will spend lots on gear and shoot cr*p.
Either way the market is diluted (supply/demand) and the income stream changes as a result.

One word: Adapt!

[zollo]

Yep, but how many others who pay $200.00 could not even consider paying $2000.00? Yes there might be the occasional one, but there is a huge demographic out there that can't, and why should they be denied the opportunity to have some professional photos taken just cause their income is at the lower end of the scale? I agree with your statement about pot-shots. The entire article does nothing to promote photography as such, rather it comes across as sour grapes. Not a good article at all in my view! It smacks of elitism!

orright, i'll quickly jump in here and ask - why the heck would anyone think that i cannot afford to offer someone a $200 dollar shoot? depending on what they were asking for? of course i wont be doing a wedding for $200 but why should I. however a family portait shoot is easily shot and burned for $200. in fact I believe that a $200 dollar shoot and burn done in my studio will be a more pleasant affair for the family because it will be quick, no fumbling around with experimental poses, MUA is on hand, props on hand, no fumbling around with lighting, no experimental PP, and their images can be edited (by my assistant) and back to them that same day - Studios have the setup to work rather quickly and not every job is a project. now would they rather that or a nervous beginner charging them the same without the setup/efficiency/experience/knowledge. this is where "professional" comes into play

and after reading the article may I add that I dont even agree with the particular pro's quoted. I say bring on the competition, and I'll step up to the challenge.

[Dan Cripps]

The WW can and often does produce equivalent or better than the FT.

Sorry, but I do find issue with this.

In my experience the vast majority of weekenders and amateurs do not produce equivalent or better results than full time professionals (who have been around for a while).

There are exceptions, and may well be some on this very site. But they are just that, exceptions.

[Bear Dale]

Weekend Warrior gets bandied around a lot in these types of discussions especially so when describing a wedding photographer in less than glowing terms.

I'd like to ask what the term "Weekend Warrior" actually is portraying except for being derogatory?

Would it be fair to say that by far the greatest amount of weddings are in fact shot on the weekend?

Or are professional wedding photographers shooting weddings Monday through Thursdays as well? I highly doubt it.

So then....whats the differentiation between a 'Pro wedding photographer' shooting a wedding on a Saturday night and a so called 'Weekend Warrior photographer' shooting a wedding on a Saturday night only other than using a distinctly discriminatry terminology for no other reason than to degrade when in fact the work produced may be on par or above and cheaper than a so called self labelled 'pro'?

The Queen, the Governer General or the Prime Minister doesn't bestow the title of Professional Photographer, it's a self bestowed status title.

If we use the model that a pro photographer is a paid photographer then that instantly makes the 'weekend warrior' a pro photographer as well.

So whats left to differentiate the two..........PRICE.

No wonder with attitudes such as -


"The greatest threat is DIY. They all think they can do the same job as we professionals can, They can all get their hands on a new high-end camera."

Pro photographers think there is a threat.

[Dan Cripps]

A weekend warrior has always served to describe someone who adopts an alternative vocation on the weekends from that which is their primary vocation during the week.

I believe it was originally coined by full time defense force employees to describe their army reserve counterparts.

It's only derogatory if used as such - much like any word or phrase.

[kiwi]

I dont mind describing myself as a weekend warrior, I dont see it as derogatory unless as Zeke says used in context with something derogatory, eg "those beeping weekend warriors are killing the industry"

[Bear Dale]

Well how many professional wedding photographers are shooting weddings other than weekends?

None I'd hazard a guess.

So that makes the term really nothing more than a derogatory label.

[Dan Cripps]

Well how many professional wedding photographers are shooting weddings other than weekends?

None I'd hazard a guess.

So that makes the term really nothing more than a derogatory label.

I've shot plenty of weddings outside of weekends.

Case closed.

Any other useless semantics you feel the need to discuss? :rolleyes:

[Bear Dale]

I've shot plenty of weddings outside of weekends.

Case closed.

Any other useless semantics you feel the need to discuss? :rolleyes:

And you don't think that a "Weekend Warrior" would avail themselves of a mid week shoot either?

So again whats the differentiation between a 'Pro wedding photographer' and a 'Weekend warrior'?

[Kym]

Sorry, but I do find issue with this.
In my experience the vast majority of weekenders and amateurs do not produce equivalent or better results than full time professionals (who have been around for a while).
There are exceptions, and may well be some on this very site. But they are just that, exceptions.

At least quote me in context.

The WW can and often does produce equivalent or better than the FT.
The risk is that the WW standards vary whereas a FT is generally more consistent.
Having seen the work of certain WW I have to say they do a fine job.
I agree the 'Uncle Bob' with his 1000D or D3100 and twin lens kit + pop up flash is not going to cut it; but I'm talking genuine regular part timers.

[Dan Cripps]

And you don't think that a "Weekend Warrior" would avail themselves of a mid week shoot either?
Not if they have existing employment elsewhere, which the majority do.


So again whats the differentiation between a 'Pro wedding photographer' and a 'Weekend warrior'?
I'm not going to make comment on who is professional and who is not - that's not the issue we are discussing.

We are talking about full time photographers, versus weekend photographers.

[Bear Dale]

I'm not going to make comment on who is professional and who is not - that's not the issue we are discussing.

We are talking about full time photographers, versus weekend photographers.

That still gets back to the inescapable fact that the greater majority of weddings are shot on weekends with Saturday day/night being the main day.

I think the majority of readers would concur that a professional wedding photographers main working hours for shooting weddings would be the weekend.

So whats the differentiation between a 'Pro wedding photographer' and a 'Weekend warrior' if they're are both working weekends?

[Dan Cripps]

That still gets back to the inescapable fact that the greater majority of weddings are shot on weekends with Saturday day/night being the main day.

I think the majority of readers would concur that a professional wedding photographers main working hours for shooting weddings would be the weekend.

So whats the differentiation between a 'Pro wedding photographer' and a 'Weekend warrior' if they're are both working weekends?

What does it matter? What point are you trying to prove - I really don't understand.

Irrespective of when the shoot takes place, for full time shooter the vast majority of the actual work happens outside of weekends. Client consultations, email enquiries, image editing, album design and construction, administration and accounting - all this happens Monday to Friday.

Yes the majority of weddings take place on Saturday. No disagreement from me. I guess the weekend warriors should be well pleased that's the case, otherwise they wouldn't have any weddings to shoot. :rolleyes:

I'd love to know your point. It's been lost on me. Repeatedly.

[Bear Dale]

What does it matter? What point are you trying to prove - I really don't understand.

Irrespective of when the shoot takes place, for full time shooter the vast majority of the actual work happens outside of weekends. Client consultations, email enquiries, image editing, album design and construction, administration and accounting - all this happens Monday to Friday.

Yes the majority of weddings take place on Saturday. No disagreement from me. I guess the weekend warriors should be well pleased that's the case, otherwise they wouldn't have any weddings to shoot. :rolleyes:

I'd love to know your point. It's been lost on me. Repeatedly.


If the questioning of the term weekend warrior is lost on you in this dialogue that we're having, no wonder my GPS School Principal (any old Scots College Boys on AP?) said to me when I left 6th form "Don't worry your school years weren't a waste, we'll be able to use you as a bad example". ;)

Why have the term weekend warrior at all? I stand by the fact that the term is meant and is used solely as a derogatory put down. A snide remark used by some, to disassociate themselves from what maybe they actually are themselves.

I can't see any reason why "weekend warriors" couldn't do - Client consultations, email enquiries, image editing, album design and construction, administration and accounting on weekday evenings can you?

[ricktas]

orright, i'll quickly jump in here and ask - why the heck would anyone think that i cannot afford to offer someone a $200 dollar shoot? depending on what they were asking for? of course i wont be doing a wedding for $200 but why should I. however a family portait shoot is easily shot and burned for $200. in fact I believe that a $200 dollar shoot and burn done in my studio will be a more pleasant affair for the family because it will be quick, no fumbling around with experimental poses, MUA is on hand, props on hand, no fumbling around with lighting, no experimental PP, and their images can be edited (by my assistant) and back to them that same day - Studios have the setup to work rather quickly and not every job is a project. now would they rather that or a nervous beginner charging them the same without the setup/efficiency/experience/knowledge. this is where "professional" comes into play

and after reading the article may I add that I dont even agree with the particular pro's quoted. I say bring on the competition, and I'll step up to the challenge.


Agree. my post was in response to the article, not you or any other member. It was aimed at those that felt the $200.00 photographer was somehow ripping them off. As you state you wouldn't do it for $200.00, therefore your target market is different and known to you, and well done for being in that space.

[Dan Cripps]

If the questioning of the term weekend warrior is lost on you in this dialogue that we're having, no wonder my GPS School Principal (any old Scots College Boys on AP?) said to me when I left 6th form "Don't worry your school years weren't a waste, we'll be able to use you as a bad example". ;)

Why have the term weekend warrior at all? I stand by the fact that the term is meant and is used solely as a derogatory put down. A snide remark used by some, to disassociate themselves from what maybe they actually are themselves.

I can't see any reason why "weekend warriors" couldn't do - Client consultations, email enquiries, image editing, album design and construction, administration and accounting on weekday evenings can you?

Ok, let's call them After Hours Heros.

You're obviously stuck on the weekend bit. :D

[Bear Dale]

Ok, let's call them After Hours Heros.

You're obviously stuck on the weekend bit. :D

ROFLMAO !!!

That cracked a smile :th3:

[rellik666]

Wow, what a debate….if someone is good at their job they will always get work. I and I am sure many people will pay what I think something is worth. If I like something a lot I will pay more for something than something that I think is mediocre. I will also pay extra for service but by the same token I want value for money…and no that doesn’t mean cheap. I don’t really care whether they are a weekend warrior or a self professed professional. I want something that appeals to me. Unfortunately photography is very subjective and what appeals to me may not appeal to someone else. It is not easy to compare two difference perspectives of Bondi Beach like it is to compare an LCD clarity and refresh rate.

What I am trying to say is that it doesn’t matter what industry you are in you need to have a point of difference, that may of course be price but it doesn’t have to be. Any industry needs to adapt and whilst I understand the concerns of some pro’s, the weekend warrior does not pose a threat on its own. As I have become more involved in the photography scene, it has made me realise the value in photography and the costs of equipment and time to get that amazing shot. I think the majority of people who have spent $200 on a shoot and are happy with the results may not have bought the $2000 shoot anyhow….they would have gone without.

I hope this makes sense and this is my opinion only, but at the end of the day if you have something people want they will pay for it.

Roo

[Kym]

Wow, what a debate….if someone is good at their job they will always get work. I and I am sure many people will pay what I think something is worth. <snip>

Agreed.

But the OP was about FT 'togs complaining about part timers/WW/out of hours 'togs
not charging enough and thereby devaluing the FT work.
To whit: "This lazy, give your soul away for nothing with the files attitude is slowly killing this industry"
In effect saying the PT 'togs should charge more; which is BS because the PT can charge whatever they wish.

I think the FT 'togs are having trouble adapting to changing market conditions i.e.
a revised supply/demand model.
(At least the ones that are complaining)

Edit: Contrast the IT Industry during Dot COM... any hacker that could build a web page was going to
make squillions (and some did). The industry has come back to some form of normalcy even though the
tools to build software are easily obtained (like camera gear) but designing, building, testing, delivering
and maintaining quality IT solutions still requires highly paid professionals.
(Who on occasion donate time to places like AP)

Edit2: There are still people who will program Access or Excel for peanuts for a small business
but this does not devalue what the professionals do. It's a different need and market.

[zollo]

That still gets back to the inescapable fact that the greater majority of weddings are shot on weekends with Saturday day/night being the main day.

I think the majority of readers would concur that a professional wedding photographers main working hours for shooting weddings would be the weekend.

So whats the differentiation between a 'Pro wedding photographer' and a 'Weekend warrior' if they're are both working weekends?

i think i understand what you mean. you can be a part time professional photographer. that is you have set up an ABN, a business name, more than likely a website, a contactable phone number, insurance, and pro quality gear - in other words a business. all it means is that you have not got the workflow yet of a full time professional photographer - or you choose not to take the work. however you are very mistaken about a wedding photographers job beginning and ending on the weekends. I think you'll find that their work is just beginning at the end of the wedding shoot itself. most of which will be done during the week to avail themselves for the next weekend shoot.


and kiwi I missed your post earlier about what class you're in. I would describe you as part time professional photographer.

there are also freelancer/contractor professionals - who i have great respect for because they have to adapt to any kind of shoot very quickly and still do a pro job

[rellik666]

I get that but what I am saying is that if they have a point of difference than they should not be worried about what they charge as the they are not the same.....


I think the FT 'togs are having trouble adapting to changing market conditions i.e.
a revised supply/demand model.
(At least the ones that are complaining)

^^:th3: This!

Roo

[Bear Dale]

I've been left with the feeling that the pro photography field is a bit of a racket.

[Kym]

I've been left with the feeling that the pro photography field is a bit of a racket.

In some cases ...
http://www.loadofbullshit.com/2008/04/26/watch-out-for-studio-photographer-scams/

Complete with formal warning from the SA Govt OCBA http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/assets/medicomms/mrelease_studio2000.pdf

Now I wonder if Studio 2000 are complaining about PT/WW ??

Edit: Studio 2000 is an extreme example; most are ok.

[kiwi]

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion

I think in general it's a tough profession, more challenging than ever, and from personal experience most of the pros ive met (and that's a few now) have been dedicated to the art of photography, not just business people. Im not sure if the economics of photography support entrepreneurs alone.

There are a minority in every industry that don't represent well

[Bear Dale]

In some cases ...
http://www.loadofbullshit.com/2008/04/26/watch-out-for-studio-photographer-scams/

Complete with formal warning from the SA Govt OCBA http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/assets/medicomms/mrelease_studio2000.pdf

Now I wonder if Studio 2000 are complaining about PT/WW ??

Edit: Studio 2000 is an extreme example; most are ok.


What a bunch of scam artists. Thankfully they and their ilk would be a very small % of the industry.

[kiwi]

For every bad story, there are probably 100's of positive ones

http://www.nowilaymedowntosleep.org/

You know, there's a risk here that all the negativity about pros, in this thread, and in general puts out a guilty by association feel for the industry

[Longshots]

I've been left with the feeling that the pro photography field is a bit of a racket.



I resisted adding anything else, but this needs to be answered.

Unbelievable. Come on this is simply ridiculous.

Do you have any concept of what you're talking about ? I dont think so with an off hand comment like that. One of my photographer friends spends most of his time shooting for free for a charity in Africa raising money for the local churches there - or perhaps the group of photographers who will drop what they're doing and go and shoot for a family who've just lost a new born child in hospitals all around the country. Have you ever tried doing that ? Shooting a dead baby with it in the mothers arms ? Paying for all of the printing of all of the images and giving them to the family to help them cope with their loss. The pro photography field is not a racket and while I took exception to the derogatory title of Big shot to describe a professional photographer, I take more than that with this. Thats simply a disgrace !

God this discussion has opened my eyes to what I see as systematic the same people quite happily accept advice and help from the people that they now effectively label as racketeers.

If I had read this with my own eyes I wouldnt believe someone would cast aspersions on such a large number of individuals with this one comment. :angry0:




The level of hypocrisy in this argument has exceeded all my worst expectations. Whats also gone way past the point of acceptability, is the so called quotes, from this particular article, that raised so many issues.

First of all, in my humble opinion, if someone charges me for something than I believe that they are in business - simple, end of story. My opinion, and it wont change. So please dont bother "correcting" me.


So if some of you could open your eyes and cast your minds back to both hypothetical situations given to you and despite many protests, should have highlighted that prices are different for different reasons.

I mean its getting a bit rich on one hand to say that we're all price fixing, and then on the other to say that some people are charging too much - in my eyes both ends of the scale are in business.

And as for the person that thinks people only choose to get married on weekends, I'm afraid you need to open you eyes a little more and think a bit more about what those wedding photographers may doing the other days of the week.


For crying out loud when people offer some assistance here, and I certainly have, realise that not every one thinks the same. So just because those people who have been interviewed - and all are asked the same questions by the way - so its the writer who is producing the tone of the article - not the photographers.

Yes its a very real concern, that people who enter the industry - doesnt matter one iota if they're part time or full time in my view - THATS HOW I STARTED !! - they are all going to need to understand that if they want to go FULL TIME, then they should be smart enough to be able to cover their costs. And if those who had taken the time to read what I contributed, you would or should have understood that. So instead of assuming that the term "industry rates" (bad choice of words in my view - as there is nothing available that would indicate any fixing of prices - god do you people never buy Petrol !!!) was price fixing, its generally used to understand that you cant just jump in and find out an average price and then offer the same and then cut it in half. Well you can, but you may either go out of business, or eventually find that your part time paying hobby/enthusiast or anything else you like to call it is costing you money.

I just cannot get over the anti professional sentiment here. And of you who are charging are pros in my view, thats it. So who are you really having a go at ? Seems to me that there have been a fair number of people offering really good advice. And yet some of you take every response and twist it to fit your argument.

And what is that argument, that five photographers were asked the same questions and all came up with one reason or another why those CHARGING a great deal less, were not going to survive, and their cheap prices may have a detrimental effect on the industry. Good god I dont agree with everything thats said, but thats why this is a democracy. It is an issue people. It has nothing to do with elitism. And it has nothing to do with protecting anyone. If anything, its trying to open the eyes of the newbies to go and work out what your costs are, and what you hope to sell - then and only then can you produce a viable business plan and produce your costs.

And to go back a bit, sure I understand that some of you simply dont care about that, because you're only going to charge what you want while you're interested in photography.
But that isnt going to make some of those concerned about that attitude.

Misquoting, adding words to quotes, labelling myself and all other pros as Bigshots (btw I didnt take offence to the name because of the similarity, I took offence at the name because I've worked bloody hard for the last 35 years, to go from a part time shooter to being able to survive on it full time - and its still bloody hard work! - and I think that its rude and offensive to label what are many contributors here with that name. I also think it would be a great deal more mature and productive to avoid that time of derogatory terms), simply isnt going to produce a reasonable discussion where one is going to feel like the time spent here was worthwhile.

Business is business, and the massive hypocrisy in my view is for anyone, to berate an industry for charging, because thats what it is. Do you have the same attitude towards your own source of full time income ? A few people have said it, but been ignored; and that is that there is a wide range of clients being served by a wide range of customers.

I frankly have never had a problem with part time photographers. Never, because thats how I started. But on the other hand, I do have an issue with people who purport to be something that they're not and never will be.

And I dont think this has anything to do with quality differences. I'm well aware of some shooters that can produce such high quality images, it leaves me breathless (and there are actually a couple here who dont even try and be part times, they just love what they do), and then there are plenty of people who regularly shoot a thousand images a week, and run their businesses profitably and ethically. Of course on the other hand there are many who could shoot themselves out of a wet paper bag, and thats not limited to being part timers, or full timers.

The one thing I cant quite believe are those who have referred to this article in question, and specifically the two editions of Capture, and yet havent even read them. :umm:

[Longshots]

For every bad story, there are probably 100's of positive ones

http://www.nowilaymedowntosleep.org/

You know, there's a risk here that all the negativity about pros, in this thread, and in general puts out a guilty by association feel for the industry

Every industry has its scam artists. And thats why we have state and goverment protection. Which btw can only work effectively if they're a registered business.

But I'm afraid that I no longer feel comfortable or welcome here with this much general hostility to people like myself who work hard at earning a living from something I enjoy, and I've been more than happy to freely contribute to forums like AP and willingly share my experience and knowledge.

There are tens of thousands of full and part time (all professional) Photographers around Australia - the majority of them fair, decent people.

And as many who have joined AIPP as enthusiasts would understand, far from alienating part timers or enthusiasts, AIPP is actually working towards assisting them and opening areas to them previously only open to full time photographers.

[Bear Dale]

William my opinion can go against everything you believe something to be. It's still only my opinion as yours is yours.

Here's an interesting question - Can somebody show me someone charging a stack of money for their work that's producing something thats truly unique?

I can go through websites and see peoples best of their best in the high price range that doesn't look any different from the lower price range shooters.

[Longshots]

That still gets back to the inescapable fact that the greater majority of weddings are shot on weekends with Saturday day/night being the main day.

I think the majority of readers would concur that a professional wedding photographers main working hours for shooting weddings would be the weekend.

So whats the differentiation between a 'Pro wedding photographer' and a 'Weekend warrior' if they're are both working weekends?

Instead of assuming or asking readers here to concur - perhaps it would be a far more enlightening experience to actually ask a pro wedding photographer if their "main working hours for shooting wedding would be the weekend" ?

Most I'm afraid would fall off their chair with that assumption - which btw is wrong.

Thats about as useful as the comment that was often asked of me at after performance receptions - "So, what do you do during the day ?" And FYI, a couple of decades ago, my first main career was as a professional principal ballet dancer with a company based in the UK, touring the world. And that common question often left me with the same head slapping feeling.

[Longshots]

William my opinion can go against everything you believe something to be. It's still only my opinion as yours is yours.

Here's an interesting question - Can somebody show me someone charging a stack of money for their work that's producing something thats truly unique?

I can go through websites and see peoples best of their best in the high price range that doesn't look any different from the lower price range shooters.


Yep its your opinion. Doesnt mean it has to be so generalised and insulting.

And I cant see the point in showing you anything quite honestly. Even if I did it would be subjective, so there is really no point. I know go and look at my work, and you can tell me that you know a bloke down the street that can do better and for half the price. As you've rudely labelled me as a racketeer as well, I dont see much point in continuing this.

Like I said, I'll log off now before someone bans me.

[kiwi]

William. I would very much doubt that the negative views expressed in this thread are representative of the vast majority, who by the way have been disappointingly largely silent, but rather the views of mainly the one member. But it's been disappointing to see some that should know better throwing flames on the fire.

I for one would be very disappointed if you were not going to contribute your views, because then what are we left with ?

Thanks either way.

[Keith]

I have also watched this tread go around and around and a few views put forward and a lot of semantics. Just what is the PROBLEM here??????

Is this anything new or strange happening???

Pros work hard and charge what they want/can/is appropriate, and non-pros also work hard and charge what/can/is appropriate. And there is different levels of skill/talent/outputs/service from everyone.

We are all photographer here, and there are thousands more out there doing what they do best. Do we need to argue between ourselves about it????


So why is there so much discussion about it all? Is everyone that bored??

[zollo]

I've been left with the feeling that the pro photography field is a bit of a racket.

Feelings. LOL. got any actual experience??

[Dan Cripps]

I've been left with the feeling that the pro photography field is a bit of a racket.

I've been left with the feeling that some people would rather be 'right' than get along with other people.

[Jules]

...
But I'm afraid that I no longer feel comfortable or welcome here with this much general hostility to people like myself who work hard at earning a living from something I enjoy, and I've been more than happy to freely contribute to forums like AP and willingly share my experience and knowledge....

William, just as the opinions expressed by those five photographers in Capture represent the opinions of those photographers, and not necessarily the industry in its entirety, so do the opinions expressed by people in this thread represent the opinions of the people who posted them and not the AP community as a whole. I myself posted several times in this thread and if any of my posts came across as hostile (to anyone), then I apologise.


Apropos of nothing, I wonder if there are forums for, say, massage therapists or maybe mechanics, with big discussions about the prevalence of newbies providing low-cost services and potentially undermining the entire industry? I doubt it.

[atky]

Funny Its OK to call a Part time shooter a Week End Warrior (I find the term very offensive for a number of reasons) but hay don't offend a full time shooter.
Ask yourselves a couple of questions if you were all siting around a table having this discussion would you use the same language would you here the same replies even if the language was the same?
I think a good robust discussion about the industry/hobby is a good thing and should be encouraged.
On a negative note some one said something about giving advice, try asking the question how much should I charge see if you get a strait answer.

[Bear Dale]

Yep its your opinion. Doesnt mean it has to be so generalised and insulting.

And I cant see the point in showing you anything quite honestly. Even if I did it would be subjective, so there is really no point. I know go and look at my work, and you can tell me that you know a bloke down the street that can do better and for half the price. As you've rudely labelled me as a racketeer as well, I dont see much point in continuing this.

Like I said, I'll log off now before someone bans me.

I've just carefully gone through and re-read every post in the entire 3 pages and I think you're being completely over sensitive and have wrongly taken a discussion personally.
In all honesty and to be quite frank, if anyone has been a little heated in this thread it's been yourself and repeatedly so.

It's just a discussion on a photography forum. We're not going to solve world hunger or find a solution for world peace and people opinions and perceptions will always be different......and happily so IMO.

[Longshots]

I've just carefully gone through and re-read every post in the entire 3 pages .

Well first thing where our perceptions change - is that in my reality there are 7 pages to reread, and clearly in your sense of reality you think there are just 3.



Funny Its OK to call a Part time shooter a Week End Warrior (I find the term very offensive for a number of reasons)

I agree with you the term was first used in this discussion by JimD. Personally I dont like that term either because again I think its disrespectful.



On a negative note some one said something about giving advice, try asking the question how much should I charge see if you get a strait answer.

Well I did give that a very good try, but got blasted down ! :Doh: You see as I tried to explain, there is no straight answer. And I make no apology there, as I'm not trying to unhelpful - actually quite the opposite.

I played the role of the devils advocate - and everyone, with specific reference to Rick - itemised why there would be major differences. Everyone's individual needs, expenses, living conditions, expectations, is going to make the answer different every time. So why do you think after reading what I said earlier, that I wasnt giving you a straight answer ? Most people threw there hands up and claimed that there is no straight answer when asking about the shop analogy ? :Doh: So even after I had given an analogy, encouraged most of you to have a go at answering, and even baited you to give the factors why the prices would be different; most of you simply chose to ignore that. Its like a never ending wheel here.

So my opinion is that its ridiculous to accuse the profession - which includes those part timers - and includes everyone from the 100 hour a week pro to those running a business without the name being registered - as racket. Or to imply that overall everyone is price fixing - which seems ironic considering what the same people have said in this discussion.

Robust debate is fine. I have no problem with it. But go back a minute to the actual post about what this topic is all about. 5 experienced pros were all asked the same question, and all said things which when I read them I didnt think it was offensive, but identifying a real issue which has been around for a few decades, but increased in the size of the problem. And that problem is many people entering the industry dont have a good business plan, other then to find out what other photographers charge and simply charge less. If thats done without finding out what their costs are, then they don stay in business very long. And once they've gone bust, there is a large percentage of people to simply fill their places, and they will go bust as well. And so on. So undoubtedly, whether you like the issue or not, its real. The different reactions to those voiced comments was and has been educational, as I do not think that they are whinging or belittleing - they are adapting, and clearly they still are,otherwise they wouldnt be in business.



IMO = this was the best comment to date:

If I was a pro tog, I'd be worried about the back yarders coming in too. On the most part, the back yarders undercut themselves on pre-production, equipment and post production usually because they haven't realised how much time/cost a job takes, and the level of real overheads it takes to run an 'ongoing' business.
There are plenty of back yarders that know how to cost a one-off job.
Whenever there is a thread started in here, and elsewhere, about how to go pro, all the usual info get's chipped in about how to make sure you're covering your costs and funding an ongoing business. That's all they're doing, and making their complaints known about the short sightedness of back yarders.
I don't see what the problem with their commentary is.

Having read and reread the Capture article in question I'm in complete agreement with that.

But when I went to explain those differences, and why they're there, I was apparently justifying fellow photographers, as opposed to giving a rational reason for price differences in any business ?



Overall what arguments have put by those that support this issue, have seemingly always been met with an overly hostile and personal response. Its that part that I think is unnecessary. I simply ask that if you all want a robust discussion, please do that without hostility.

And as Rick specifically asked for an experienced pros take on this, thats why I added my opinion. One thats based on experience of the industry, from a pro's point of view and as an educator's point of view as well.

[I @ M]

Well first thing where our perceptions change - is that in my reality there are 7 pages to reread, and clearly in your sense of reality you think there are just 3.




William, the number of pages visible in any one thread is dependant on a couple of things.

Primarily the way your user control panel is set to display posts has a large bearing on the number of pages you will see.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/sp.jpg

You see seven, I see three, neither figure is wrong, purely differing configurations.

[bigdazzler]

Ah look .. we all do what we do for different reasons. Each to their own. Smile and be happy and go take a photo :)

I got me a weekend warrior shoot this arvo ... Might even get paid, who knows ?? :lol:

[Longshots]

William, the number of pages visible in any one thread is dependant on a couple of things.

Primarily the way your user control panel is set to display posts has a large bearing on the number of pages you will see.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/sp.jpg

You see seven, I see three, neither figure is wrong, purely differing configurations.

Thanks for pointing that out - apologies to Jim on that one :)

[farmer_rob]

Very late to the discussion, but it has been a fascinating read.

A long time ago, I learnt that there are two real business strategies - price and quality. At the same time, some products are price elastic - lower the price, you sell more and raise it you sell less. (NB - cost of sale has NOTHING to do with this.) Thirdly, barriers to entry to an industry can enable existing industry members to maintain higher prices.

In the case of photography, it seems to me that a) barriers to entry have dramatically dropped over the past few years; and b) the photographic product is price-elastic. Hence, those running a business have to decide which business strategy they use - price or quality. Those who don't approach it this way will fall into a hole. If you go "price", you have to keep your costs down. If you go "quality" you have to supply a quality product.

William - I can see your distress, but I am afraid I cannot get worked up about people entering a business with a bad business plan and failing. This is the way of our western capitalist society.

Finally, to all - try competing in a price-taking market (such as farming), where you don't get to choose the price that your think your product is worth, but instead you only get what customers pay. This seems to me to be where established professional photographers are being pushed (price-taking), and they hate it. I don't blame them for hating it, but it isn't going to change what is happening.

[Longshots]

William - I can see your distress, but I am afraid I cannot get worked up about people entering a business with a bad business plan and failing. This is the way of our western capitalist society.



Its not really my distress Rob - my position on this topic has always been to explain what the OP orginally posted - which is that, to generalise on the 5 people in this interview (what this topic was about), were/are concerned about an age old issue of people entering the market without an idea of what their costs are. The fact that they will and do fail, is part of many industries.

And because so many people assume that the area of the market we're talking about here is representative of the entire photographic market - when in my situation it isnt. Commercial shooters work with a variety of very different business models, which has no relationship at all to the portrait market.

[Redgum]

The only professional photographer is one that looks outside the "square" and earns a living from his/her trade. When you look at these threads you would think that weddings, portraits and landscapes were the only qualification. Far from it. They really only constitute a very small proportion of the industry. Just look at trade catalogues, company reports, newspapers and magazines and God bless, the web and you soon realise that what people here think is commercial doesn't really rate a mention on the professionals agenda.
So, the original question was about some pro complaining about competition. Obviously served the purpose. Raising the fear/controversy barrier is a good way to fend off competitors.

[farmer_rob]

Its not really my distress Rob - my position on this topic has always been to explain what the OP orginally posted - which is that, to generalise on the 5 people in this interview (what this topic was about), were/are concerned about an age old issue of people entering the market without an idea of what their costs are. The fact that they will and do fail, is part of many industries.

And because so many people assume that the area of the market we're talking about here is representative of the entire photographic market - when in my situation it isnt. Commercial shooters work with a variety of very different business models, which has no relationship at all to the portrait market.

I quite happily accept that there are many different forms of "paid-for" photography - each facing similar and different competitive and business issues, and had forgotten that the article at the core of this thread (which I have not read) was concerning portrait photography. However, the general theme of professional/full-time photographers being undercut by newcomers/amateurs/part-timers to their market pops up quite regularly, regardless of their place in the photographic spectrum.

I still cannot get concerned about people entering a market with a poor business model or understanding of their costs - yes, it impacts existing people in the market, but it weeds out the weak, and toughens the strong. (Or edit:with a new business model, it completely subverts the market, and everyone is left looking for a new job.) Note: I recognise that the impact on the photography market does not affect me directly, but I face related competitive threats in my own business areas.

BTW, People may also be interested in thisstory of an editorial photographer (http://tiffinbox.org/a-photographers-life-is-a-juggling-act/) in America about the changes in his market and it's effect on him.

[Longshots]

I quite happily accept that there are many different forms of "paid-for" photography - each facing similar and different competitive and business issues, and had forgotten that the article at the core of this thread (which I have not read) was concerning portrait photography. However, the general theme of professional/full-time photographers being undercut by newcomers/amateurs/part-timers to their market pops up quite regularly, regardless of their place in the photographic spectrum.

I still cannot get concerned about people entering a market with a poor business model or understanding of their costs - yes, it impacts existing people in the market, but it weeds out the weak, and toughens the strong. (Or edit:with a new business model, it completely subverts the market, and everyone is left looking for a new job.) Note: I recognise that the impact on the photography market does not affect me directly, but I face related competitive threats in my own business areas.

BTW, People may also be interested in thisstory of an editorial photographer (http://tiffinbox.org/a-photographers-life-is-a-juggling-act/) in America about the changes in his market and it's effect on him.


Well the point Rob was that the article wasnt complaining in my view. But more of an industry wide awareness that new people entering the industry can benefit by reading views of those already working. So the way I read it, was along the same vein as people seeking similar advice sought on something like this forum, and being offered perspectives from those with broader experience.

Hey if you're not concerned thats fine. I cant see what the problem is when some are. But I wonder if you had been placed in a similar situation where you agreed to a phone interview, and answered the questions posed, if you had faced with a particular and very specific question about the future of your particular industry; how you would respond ?

Maybe if more people had read the actual article the foundation of this discussion would not been so "black and white".

[Bear Dale]

BTW, People may also be interested in thisstory of an editorial photographer (http://tiffinbox.org/a-photographers-life-is-a-juggling-act/) in America about the changes in his market and it's effect on him.


Interesting read Rob.

[atky]

I find it a strange thing to think that to be professional means you make most of your income from photography or that you do it full time. I always thought being professional was about an attitude and the fact that you did it for pay.
So I am a weekend shooter I do it for pay and I try to have a professional attitude so if that makes me a week end warrior I am but is that any worse than being a full time warrior, (This is a statement not a question) so pleas don't give any advice to this pore misguided individual at this time, I'm not asking for it, don't get me wrong when I need some advice I will ask, when you give it don't patronize me though (I've been self employed for nearly 20 years so have a grasp of what you need to do to make a living for yourself). Sorry if you the reader takes this the wrong way but to be blunt, being a full time photographer dose not make you an expert in how to make a living or should I say the only experts on how to make a living. What makes you so sure that the week end shooter is not more qualified to give advice on how to make a living.
As for those who give there work away I can't stop you, wish you wouldn't though, pleas see that most of the people you give it to are and will continue to take advantage of you and yes you are destroying a market for people who make a living out of it (close friends, family and some non profit organizations OK).
Some one once said to a photographer I know that I was to expensive and could they come and shoot the events I shot. You know why I was to expensive, well this shooter gave disks of images from events away so hay I,m going to be to expensive what ever I charge.
My point is just because I have another job dose not make me nonprofessional and if you give stuff away you will p--- others off but if you chose to I can't stop you. Just hope some one doesn't start doing what you do for a living for free.
end of rant.

[farmer_rob]

Well the point Rob was that the article wasnt complaining in my view. But more of an industry wide awareness that new people entering the industry can benefit by reading views of those already working. So the way I read it, was along the same vein as people seeking similar advice sought on something like this forum, and being offered perspectives from those with broader experience.

Hey if you're not concerned thats fine. I cant see what the problem is when some are. But I wonder if you had been placed in a similar situation where you agreed to a phone interview, and answered the questions posed, if you had faced with a particular and very specific question about the future of your particular industry; how you would respond ?

Maybe if more people had read the actual article the foundation of this discussion would not been so "black and white".

Please don't put words in my mouth... I specifically did not say "complaining", nor (as I have not read it) was I commenting on the article itself, more on the comments and views expressed in the thread by many people. Having said that, I take your (longshot's) point - broader perspectives are very valuable, and maybe a wider reading would have helped the discussion. (Is the article available online to the public - ie me? I don't "do" dead-tree versions at the moment.)

Regarding phone interviews - I have done them, and am very aware that what I say will represent me and the organisation I am representing. I can be very passionate and vocal about some specific issues, and I can understand your (longshot's) passion for the photography industry. As presented here, I suspect that the photographers interviewed did not take enough care to understand that their views could be interpreted to be representative of wider attitudes - and although I have not read the article, I think other readers responses to the article demonstrate that.

Edit: Oh, and y the way, I don't have a lot of faith in the future of farming - "my" industry - but don't get me started :eek:.

[ricktas]

I feel that the article, most likely unintentionally, has created the discussion here and more than likely in few offices and lounge rooms, cafes across Aus. Whilst I can see how it could have been read, as William says, as a way of making the weekend warrior consider their pricing methodology, the discussion here shows how ambiguous it has been interpreted. That fault, if any, should lay entirely with the journalist and editors of the magazine. I think they severely failed in their communication of what they were most likely trying to do.

[kiwi]

I feel that the article, most likely unintentionally, has created the discussion here and more than likely in few offices and lounge rooms, cafes across Aus. Whilst I can see how it could have been read, as William says, as a way of making the weekend warrior consider their pricing methodology, the discussion here shows how ambiguous it has been interpreted. That fault, if any, should lay entirely with the journalist and editors of the magazine. I think they severely failed in their communication of what they were most likely trying to do.

Not really, it might be useful those people commenting on said article had read said article - wouldn't that be a fundamental piece of communicating ?

[Redgum]

Not really, it might be useful those people commenting on said article had read said article - wouldn't that be a fundamental piece of communicating ?
Would agree with this. It's the reader who makes the interpretation, not the writer. What has dominated here is politics and I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion even when they don't know what they're talking about.

[ricktas]

If the author of the article had effectively written said article in a different way, the purpose might have been more readily received. I do agree that communication is the key, but in this instance that starts with the writer. I don't believe the Pro's concerned set out to alienate other photographers.

[Kym]

Just to clarify my personal position ... cross posting from another post of mine.

I have no objection for anyone getting paid whatever they can for the work they do.
If someone can get $10,000 for a shoot all power to them.
I do object to that person complaining that others (part time/WW/what ever) are not charging enough.
It's a free market.

Many moons ago I was contracting in IT.
People were quite happy to pay $80+GST per hour for my time vs $20 for a graduate.
There was a reason.
On one occasion I billed $3,500 for what amounted to about four hours actual work plus a license fee.
It was not the work but the technology (my own) that I brought to that company and saved them over $10,000.

I don't put down anyone that has photography as their primary income.
I do however say that the market has changed in the last 5-10 years and people need to adapt.

[arthurking83]

Not really, it might be useful those people commenting on said article had read said article - wouldn't that be a fundamental piece of communicating ?

I think the only person having commented on the article in question, from an outsiders perspective has been the one person to have admitted that they read the article.

this thread has gotten overly long, and in many ways distracted so I can't remember if anyone else has commented on it.
But the commentary and/or opinion on the article itself, has only appeared by the person I remember reading the article and raising the issue.(except for Longshots)

All other comments on the issue of pro portrait togs vs the weekend warriors is as part of the debate that comes with the initial observation by the OP.

The problem, as Rick pointed out, is that the article has misrepresented the general view of the pro portrait industry on the subject of part timers diluting the industry's value.

Longshots now tells us that the mood of the article was not meant to be as abrasive as Jim's initial reaction was too it, so the fault lies squarely with the articles author.

edit: I did go back and the other opinion of the article that I found was similar to Jim's

almost all other comments are on the topic of the industry, not the article itself.


------------------------------------------------

Zeke!!..... what a crackup! :lol:



The BMW v Hyundai analogy is what is ridiculous. It's wholly irrelevant and nonsensical.

The vast majority of part time shooters' pricing models are arbitrary at best. That's cause for annoyance for anyone who has dedicated their working life to establishing and running a professional business. Actually, I should clarify - sometimes it's cause for amusement rather than annoyance. :)

In the case of talented shooters who actually posses some semblance of skill and ability, it is definitely annoying. Why would anyone sell themselves short? Surely they wouldn't do it knowingly? Either their pricing is based on ignorance or fear.


I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. I've had clients who have used $200 shoot and burners in the past and then spent ten times that with me. What market segment do they fall in?

I would suggest that the only ones truly qualified to offer informed opinions are those who have experienced both sides of the fence. Those photographers who started out as part time amateurs and managed to progress into the full time professional ranks.

Either side (and I'm loathe to describe it as such) taking pot shots at the other without an understanding and appreciation for the other's unique situation is just silliness.

I've underlined the two lines of text that made me laugh!!(because I've been ACCUSED of misquoting people on here before!)

So you're saying that not only are you a pro portrait photographer you're also a professional researcher on the subject of nationwide business strategies as well?
If so, then are you a part time photographer as a side line to the researching vocation, or is it the other way around? Either way the assumption here is that in at least one of your expert fields here, there has to be be some level of part time work involved in one of those arenas.

Or is this comment "...The vast majority of part time shooters' pricing models are arbitrary at best."... just a wild stab in the dark, and the reality is that a few of the warriors that you've heard of through various 4th party discussions have done that?
Some proven and respected statistical data would make a nice read.

otherwise it just seems like a 'pot shot' at the weekend warrior trade, where I'd assume that the vast majority of the weekend warrior trade, the operator is smart enough to work out that her costs to get to a location to shoot a few pics of a puppy and her owner, which is costing her $30 in petrol.. she can easily charge $200 for the event. That is not an arbitrary pricing structure!(contrary to what you think you know of this person!) She worked out her costs, and priced accordingly how is that arbitrary?

I think your pot shot at this end of the market is genuinely covered by this small excerpt ...

".... taking pot shots at the other without an understanding and appreciation for the others unique situation is just silliness..."

My belief is that; IF the part time market was powered by the vapour trails of the vast majority of arbitrary warriors, it wouldn't be such an issue for the non elitist pro that has nothing to worry about.
They(warriors) would have priced themselves out of existence a long time ago, and the price fixing pro's can get back to what they do best!(ie. not post their non elitist thoughts on the matter when, they seem to have 80-90 hours of photography and researching ahead of them for the week :p)
The only one's making noises here, in the vast majority of instances... is the pro that may be losing market share to the arbitrary ones.

[Longshots]

Please don't put words in my mouth... I specifically did not say "complaining", nor (as I have not read it) was I commenting on the article itself, more on the comments and views expressed in the thread by many people. Having said that, I take your (longshot's) point - broader perspectives are very valuable, and maybe a wider reading would have helped the discussion. (Is the article available online to the public - ie me? I don't "do" dead-tree versions at the moment.)

Regarding phone interviews - I have done them, and am very aware that what I say will represent me and the organisation I am representing. I can be very passionate and vocal about some specific issues, and I can understand your (longshot's) passion for the photography industry. As presented here, I suspect that the photographers interviewed did not take enough care to understand that their views could be interpreted to be representative of wider attitudes - and although I have not read the article, I think other readers responses to the article demonstrate that.

Edit: Oh, and y the way, I don't have a lot of faith in the future of farming - "my" industry - but don't get me started :eek:.

It wasnt my intention to put any words in you mouth - so my apologies if thats come across.




My intent was to ask people to read the article - because the many of the views expressed
after that - and which you yourself you refer to are IMHO not entirely valid.

I've always said that I dont entirely agree with the main line of questioning, but I do think that those who have read it are reading it without thinking that those interviewed are intending to assist others. Which is how I read it.

Steve aka Atky - I couldnt agree with you more, and I'm glad you made the point. Hence me getting my knickers in a twist, because there's no point in painting all pros as bigshots, or that the industry is a racket (not saying you said that BTW) when IMHO anyone who is charging is in business, and I'll refer to them as pros unless they're giving it away.

Thanks to everyone who has now strongly supported the point about referring to the article in question.

[zollo]

I'd assume that the vast majority of the weekend warrior trade, the operator is smart enough to work out that her costs to get to a location to shoot a few pics of a puppy and her owner, which is costing her $30 in petrol.. she can easily charge $200 for the event. That is not an arbitrary pricing structure!(contrary to what you think you know of this person!) She worked out her costs, and priced accordingly how is that arbitrary?


please compare with the article qoute "This lazy, give your soul away for nothing with the files attitude is slowly killing this industry.....

were these pros complaining about the the ones that you wrote about who charge according to their costs?? NO. :angry0:
so did they have a legitimate point... YES




The problem, as Rick pointed out, is that the article has misrepresented the general view of the pro portrait industry on the subject of part timers diluting the industry's value.

your quote above theirs below


....The answer to that problem is is educating the photographers, but the photographers we want to educate, I fear are not listening or simply do not want to listen".

did they say kill em all?? NO. is their point right on the money?? EFFING. AYE. :D

I will go so far as to say that had the op read the article correctly and without prejudice, the pros from the article make the most sense of any post in this thread mine included.

[Luna-blu]

I'm gonna weigh in on this, beacause there is an important point that I'm not sure has been raised (I haven't read the whole thread yet).

I got out of hairdressing for this reason,
Every other week someone is opening their new salon,
doing their "grand opening secials, this month only!" routine,
The train of thought behind this is "we might lose a bit of money to begin with, but it gets the clients in the door, and then once they like us we can raise our prices and really earn some money"

Wrong

It gets the cheapskates through the door, they like because you're cheap, and when you put your prices up, most of them will move on to the latest "grand opening secials, this month only!" salon.

So what happens next? The clients are gone, overheads are still there but there aren't enough clients to pay for them at the inflated price, what to do?
After a few months things get desperate, the owner isn't earning a wage anymore, she's getting whats left over, so of course the answer is to lower your prices, get some of the cheapskates back and work on volume.

After a year or two the starry eyed owner with the "brilliant opening specials!" idea is gone, we now have an overworked underpaid business owner that is sick of competing with a market flooded with "grand opening specials!" so she puts the salon on the market, sells for around the same price she spent on it or less to guess who?

A STARRY EYED NEW BUSINESS OWNER WHO IS GONNA HAVE "GRAND OPENING SPECIALS!!!"

And the cycle repeats.


Sure there are salons that are expensive, Stelios Papas was charging over $100 for haircut 10 years ago, but his staff had to spend 2 nights a week training every week for the duration of their employment, he insists that all haircuts take an hour to complete.
Why? Because he delivers a $100 haircut by staff trained in every aspect of fulfilling your requsets, they are experts in long, short, straight, curly, too thick, too fine anything you throw at them they can handle.

And I bet right now you're thinking "$100 FOR A FREAKIN HAIRCUT???!!!"

Which means you just bought into the cheap-salon-grand-opening-special-mentality.

So?

This is how the public view all service industries, it's either important and they will spend on quality, or it's just a bloody haircut and I don't want to spend anymore than I have to.

Now if we take what we know from my hair salon analogy, and extrapolate that to the photography business, or any industry we can see that all that happens when the market is flooded with new business owners is the consumer is in heaven, business owners are in hell.

This is happening because there are a lot of people out there that assume it's easier to work for yourself than it is to work for others. Ya just gotta buy a camera and like taking snapshots.

Last year I was working in at camerahouse, I had the pleasure of selling a D300 to a gentleman, he'd just been made redundant and was going to be a wedding photographer.
I naturally assumed he knew how to use a camera, I was wrong.
He couldn't understand why I was talking about noise reduction when "of course it will make a noise when I trip the shutter?" silly me.
Didn't want to use raw because that's a waste of time, but how come pictures aren't printing right, apperture, shutter the list goes on.
I'm not sure how his business went but I hope he didn't refinance his house to do it.

Then there was the lady who wanted me to look at her D60 (kit lens') because there were
"funny spots" in her pictures, I told her it needed a sensor clean it would be best to send it away to get cleaned, "how long will it take because I'm booked out with weddings for the next few weeks and my clients won't like these spots"
Ever heard of a backup body love?
After all you are promoting yourself as a professional and taking money from people for your services?
What's that? oh you don't have any money to invest in a second camera?
Well maybe if you weren't charging rock bottom prices you'd bloody well be able to afford to run a real business that covered these necessary overheads!
but instead you're devaluing an entire industry.

So these people will get out, a new set of people will buy their first slr for and have a crack at it, the only plan being I'll charge less than everyone else and just like hairdressing the market will have a continual supply of cheap to choose from.

So? all I can surmise from this speech (rant if you like:)) is that people that undercut on price are undermining the entire industry in which they hope to make their career and fortune in, why on earth would you want to cut your own throat????


As for the pros acting like no one new is allowed in the industry, get over it!
Save your arguments for the idiots that don't know what image noise is, or don't want to waste time on a sensor clean.

There are plenty of people that are taking things seriously and are dilligently applying themselves to their craft in the hope that one day they will be able to join the industry.

[zollo]

we've been thru all that luna, but the general sentiment is, if after hour heroes can do the same quality as bigshot pros but charge less then pros shouldn't exist or say anything about the industry. a very simplified and rather dumbed down version of real life but thats the sentiment i pickup.

[arthurking83]

Sorry Zollo, I don't get what you;re trying to say here.

I haven't read the article, so I'm not going into the semantics of what they're talking about in the article.

BUT.. as a point of reference, and the same reference has been made over and again..

A pro with a studio, and a vested interest in that business, in terms of overheads and finance time.. and whatever else!.. the 'warrior' has no interest in that!

The warrior only has an interest in what they're doing themselves, and how it relates to them, and can they canvass and attract customers for themselves.
Their cost is $30 for the shoot, so they charge accordingly.

is it as simple as that.. yes effin way it is.

if their only concern is the way the warriors are working the market then they'll lose out in the end.

their only concern should be... their business and how to improve it.

does the warrior care about the industry as it should currently stands according to the few gods unwilling to change? (the answer is more than obvious if you don't already know it)

the warrior cares about one thing... THEIR ability to make some money on the side.. not what the industry used to be, or what some demi god wants it to be.

That final QUOTE line you posted is quite offensive in my book.
(and if it were coming from a government, making those statements, there be a revolution coming!

THEY want to educate the photographer according to their standards!

if I wanted to start up my very own business tomorrow(ok, lets make it portrait photography then).. I have a very low tolerance for the type of people that you've championed there, and their opinions and education methods are not something that interest me. If they want to be 'educators', then they should relent to the pressure from the warriors, and vacate the portrait photography industry

So the Pros in the article are correct to want to 'educate' other business operators(the photography aspect is actually irrelevant in this subject) to accept their business models?

Can't wait to see Scotty's answer to this one! :p

[zollo]

see my post above.
and p.s. pro photographers whinging have nothing on teachers. theyt are constantly whinging and striking cos they are underpaid or there's changes coming in or some newbies with no proper training (hmm luna posts camerahouse example fits in here) haha learn to adapt as has been touted so much in this thread. cant even remember anything useful taught to me by teachers past 5th grade :D flame suit is on

[Longshots]

I haven't read the article, so I'm not going into the semantics of what they're talking about in the article.





If you havent read the article then STOP assuming you know what you're talking about because as you are clearly demonstrating you have NO idea!

You say you wont go into semantics, but you talk about what the pros are complaining about ? And as I've said, what some people see as complaining others like me see as helping those entering the industry.

Could we do without the words that are thinly disguised as foul language btw - and I dont mean just one person here.



I cannot believe people will make references to this article - which means ALL people earning money from this business - disparagingly as "gods" when they havent read the piece - incredulous !

[Bear Dale]

Last year I was working in at camerahouse, I had the pleasure of selling a D300 to a gentleman, he'd just been made redundant and was going to be a wedding photographer.
I naturally assumed he knew how to use a camera, I was wrong.
He couldn't understand why I was talking about noise reduction when "of course it will make a noise when I trip the shutter?" silly me.
Didn't want to use raw because that's a waste of time, but how come pictures aren't printing right, apperture, shutter the list goes on.
I'm not sure how his business went but I hope he didn't refinance his house to do it.

Then there was the lady who wanted me to look at her D60 (kit lens') because there were
"funny spots" in her pictures, I told her it needed a sensor clean it would be best to send it away to get cleaned, "how long will it take because I'm booked out with weddings for the next few weeks and my clients won't like these spots"
Ever heard of a backup body love?
After all you are promoting yourself as a professional and taking money from people for your services?
What's that? oh you don't have any money to invest in a second camera?

Ever heard of anyone in a camerahouse having the knowledge to be able to clean a sensor without the necessity of having to send it away "love"?

I bet your 'camerahouse' purported to be "professional" but reading what you posted I have my doubts.



After all you are promoting yourself as a professional and taking money from people for your services?
What's that? oh you don't have any money to invest in a second camera?
Well maybe if you weren't charging rock bottom prices you'd bloody well be able to afford to run a real business that covered these necessary overheads!
but instead you're devaluing an entire industry.


The same derogarotary accusations could be applied to the camerahouse you worked in.

[Longshots]

Ever heard of anyone in a camerahouse having the knowledge to be able to clean a sensor without the necessity of having to send it away "love"?

I bet your 'camerahouse' purported to be "professional" but reading what you posted I have my doubts.




The same derogarotary accusations could be applied to the camerahouse you worked in.

While I would like to agree with you, I think that it would be fair and reasonable to point out some common sense here.

Camerhouse are a photographic retailer - by definition of their business, their trading name, their ABN - professional retailer. They in general are not camera technicians. Exactly the same accusation could be said of any retailer.

So I wonder if you would also expect your carpet shop to be able to clean the carpet you previously bought from them ?


Or maybe Harvey Norman should also be able to clean your oven six months after you've bought it ?



Would be nice though wouldnt it ? :)

[Bear Dale]

Only going on my experience. I have a camerahouse 1 hours drive to the north of me and one 1 hours drive to the south of me and both offer sensor cleaning. I have never availed myself of their services.

Everytime a Canon CPS tech goes to Teds at Canberra I get an email notifying of the date for a complimentary senor clean on my camera bodies (not because I'm a CPS member, just a good customer).

[Bear Dale]

So I wonder if you would also expect your carpet shop to be able to clean the carpet you previously bought from them ?





Of course. Lots of carpet retailers for a price will come and clean carpet.

[Longshots]

Of course. Lots of carpet retailers for a price will come and clean carpet.



Who ? Could you name just one please ? - I'll buy my next carpet from them.

I suppose Hardly Normal also offer oven cleaning as well - must have missed that special.

[Longshots]

Only going on my experience. I have a camerahouse 1 hours drive to the north of me and one 1 hours drive to the south of me and both offer sensor cleaning. I have never availed myself of their services.

.


Hang on a minute -didnt you just say this previously ? :



Ever heard of anyone in a camerahouse having the knowledge to be able to clean a sensor without the necessity of having to send it away "love"?

I bet your 'camerahouse' purported to be "professional" but reading what you posted I have my doubts.




The same derogarotary accusations could be applied to the camerahouse you worked in.



Afraid you have me confused Jim - they can't do sensor cleans or they can - which is it?

[Luna-blu]

Ever heard of anyone in a camerahouse having the knowledge to be able to clean a sensor without the necessity of having to send it away "love"?

I bet your 'camerahouse' purported to be "professional" but reading what you posted I have my doubts.




The same derogarotary accusations could be applied to the camerahouse you worked in.


You know I thought this was a discussion about an industry, not a slinging match.

Jim it takes all sorts, years ago I cleaned the sensor an my D50, and it got a hell of a lot of noise after, I got the proper wipes from photocontinental so I used the right stuff.

After that I don't clean any sensor let alone the sensor of another persons pride and joy :o

[Luna-blu]

For us it was the bosses decision not ours, and we went along with it because you generally try not to irritate the boss.

[Bear Dale]

Afraid you have me confused Jim - they can't do sensor cleans or they can - which is it?


Keep up William :) some can Luna-Blu's can't.


Who ?

William, Harvey Norman sell carpet and have their own Carpet and Furniture/Upholstery cleaning services.

[Bear Dale]

You know I thought this was a discussion about an industry, not a slinging match.



But Luna-blu to be fair it was you that was slinging off IMO at those two customers that you used as an example of so called "pros" being in fact from your perception in dealing with them shoddy operators. I can only go on what you wrote to base that on.

[Luna-blu]

Jim,

just saying that if you wanna be a professional, be a professional.

If my mechanic didn't know how to use a basic piece of equipment like say a jack, I probably wouldn't want him touching my car.
I imagine that most people assume the tog knows how to use a camera before they split with their money.

And yeah it may have been a bit of a slinging off, but we also had to print pictures for the devestated brides, some of whom were extremely distressed that they had put their trust and faith in a person who couldn't deliver what was promised.

all very sad, when you consider it.

[Bear Dale]

Jim,

just saying that if you wanna be a professional, be a professional.





But herein again is the crux of the problem. Those two customers that you mentioned in your post may truly believe that they are professionals they may have the website, the letter head and the business card to prove it.


If my mechanic didn't know how to use a basic piece of equipment like say a jack, I probably wouldn't want him touching my car.

Thats why I would only use a licensed mechanic.

[Luna-blu]

Keep up William :) some can Luna-Blu's can't.


Can't or prefers not to damage someone else's belonging?

[arthurking83]

If you havent read the article then STOP assuming you know what you're talking about because as you are clearly demonstrating you have NO idea!

You say you wont go into semantics, but you talk about what the pros are complaining about ? And as I've said, what some people see as complaining others like me see as helping those entering the industry.

.....

Err.... excuse me sir! :rolleyes:

I never said once that I know anything about this photography business(from my own personal experiences). But from the people that I do know directly and from some on here indirectly through the internet and some now in person, I do have a limited understanding based on their points of view and seeing how they operate.

I DID clearly state that I'm not referring directly to the article when I'm exercising my right to an opinion of the industry. Except to say that if one person(and in the thread there were at least two!), has interpreted the article to be an unwarranted derogatory piece, and another person that has contributed to the article, has now revealed that this belief is mistaken, then the article has caused confusion among the readership.
THAT WAS MY ONLY CONTRIBUTION TO THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.

DO I NEED TO SAY IT AGAIN, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOUT IT OUT AGAIN!

FOR THE RECORD!!

Zollo posted an excerpt of the article with a quote from one of these pros.
I then responded to the topic in the quote, as I understood the quote to be presented.
If the quote was mistakenly posted and misrepresented then you should look to others in the thread that misrepresent the article.
I can only respond as best as I can(which judging by yoru jaded point of view) is going to be wrong, irrespective of what I say anyhow.

So, as others in this thread have asked you on numerous occasions... to stop misunderstanding our replies and trying to re interpret them ... Or take more time to read the thread with more due care ...or just stop.. full stop!
Your personal interest on the topic is clouding your judgment here.

So, now it seems to me that we lay people are not allowed to have an opinion on the industry either? :Doh:
Even if we have some idea on how to run a business!

Business is business and the type of service has no relevance at all.
And as a currently self employed person with the burden of having to wade through the mire of GST and ABNs and P&L statements and all that crap, I think I should be entitled to an opinion of what being in business means.

What this all boils down to is that there are a few that have been in the industry are loathe to change with the industry, and instead only seem to concentrate on what others are doing to the industry.. NOT their own business and keeping it successful.

This opinion that I have is not based, in any way, from the article in question... it comes from the replies made in this thread on the topic of running a photography business by the few that seem to have a vested interest in the industry in some way or another(either as educators or operators) and the general consensus seems to be that all these weekend warriors are doing it wrong!

THAT'S BS .. pure and simple as that!

It may be wrong for your purposes... but for now!... For the time that this weekend warrior want's to be in it ... The way they operate their business is right for them.. that's all they care about and all they want.

On the topic of hairdressing, I know a person who is now directly related to me, and was also once in the hairdressing salon game(in Hampton, Vic) a well to do suburb.
Business(not hers) went bust, and she became a weekend warrior in the hairdressing industry.. basically working from home and door to door.
When I can remember to ask her, she'll bring her scissors to the next meeting point we've arranged and cut my hair for me(but that's for me to remember to ask her).
She basically fits the description of the weekend warrior photographer, but in another unrelated market... no business plan, no market analysis, no 'edumacation' quite literally nothing!.. except she knows how to cut hair. She's doing quite well for herself thankyouverymuch!
She knew roughly how much to charge, how much people are/were willing to pay and charged accordingly. And being my sister-in-law I know 90% of their current financial status, and how her income helped my brother's fledgling transport business!

So try not to forget that YOU may not know as much as you think you do as well, huh?

and if you take offense to my 'language' that's only due to your inflexible perspective.. as far as I'm currently aware sarcasm is still a valid and allowable form of humour on AP.

This is where the problems lies ... and from what I'm reading in this thread and every other that has proceeded it. The people with a vested interest in the industry are reluctant to change with it and can only resort to tactics that can only be called subterfuge. They pour scorn on the new comers and try to re educate these new comers to the 'way it's supposed to be done'

YOU William were trying to do this with your amateurish business plan question!

Who gives a stuff as to who makes more profit in your stupid business question?

To make it clear!! I believe the $200 per job operator has the ability to make the most profit if he is willing to use a bit of common sense and think outside the square.
THERE! you now have an answer contrary to what you probably wanted to hear. You want us all only to accept your point of view. With your opening comment it seems that's the way professional photographer work! And if you all don't start to tone it down all little, in the end it's only to your detriment

What amount of money each individual makes for their own purposes at any point in time is all that matters!! How it relates to you and your neighbor is of no consequence to your partner and her family. We all have different needs and standards.

your business plan works well for you, Joe Blow's 'business plan' works well for him.. get over it and concentrate on your business, and not tell him how to run his!

[arthurking83]

Oh! and on the tpoic of trying to maintain accuracy and correctness for a clearer and untainted thread:



......

Last year I was working in at camerahouse, I had the pleasure of selling a D300 to a gentleman, he'd just been made redundant and was going to be a wedding photographer.
I naturally assumed he knew how to use a camera, I was wrong.....

The main word used here by LunaBlu is GOING .... to be.....

there is nothing wrong with having aspirations.

My father did it, all his mates did it, and millions of other people also did it.

They entered into their respective business ventures with little or no knowledge of the industry and have succeeded. My father and his mates not only had the insurmountable hurdle of limited knowledge of business and plans and technical garbage like that, but also a very limited understanding of the English language too ... being new migrants to the country way back then. How do you educate a new migrant with limited knowledge of the language to plan for superannuation and business structures when they can't even understand the terms!?

It's fair enough to pour scorn on a person and their ability(to produce or succeed... or in my case review gear! :D), but my understanding of this particular fellow's story, is that he had an ambition. Nothing wrong with that.
As for the lady with the funny spots.. well she's probably a great photographer and can take awesome images, but has no technical knowledge of the gear.. once again.. nothing wrong with that either.
I bet that Annie Leibovitz can't repair the shutter mechanism on her Leica, or clean dust spots off her H3's sensor too.

.. actually that lady with the funny spots sounds like a bit of a worry :p

[Luna-blu]

Look I don't have problem with aspirations here, I encourage it, and always encouraged him and answered his questions, I directed him to AP so he could make use of the learning centre.

But he was acting like now he had the camera nothing could stop him, and sadly we could see him becoming more and more dejected and upset as it became apparent that it wasn't a cheap way to be a millionaire.

I'm sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intention, my intention was to point out there is a big difference between an amatuer and a newbie. I don't have problem with an amatuer giving it a crack, but for a person to think they are gonna buy their first camera and then be earning next week is crazy.
Buy the camera, learn the craft, but don't do it because you're already out of work and need a job.

I think the problem with pros and amatuers alike is how to integrate the amatuers into the industry, because everyone should be able to do what they want, but at the same time we have to make sure we don't devalue the industry as a whole, otherwise no one will be able to earn a good living from it.

This is people power, if the collective conscious is that a certain amount of money is what a service is worth, regardless of how much it costs the vendor to provide that service, then we may end up seeing a career path that is not viable, a bit like a son going to uni instead of staying to run the farm, there's not enough money in it to pay the bills.

Yes there are some pros that are doing it tough because they are used to money for jam, but I think most of the people affected by this downward trend are somewhere in between weekend warriors and the top end pro's

And if they do the job, they should earn a wage that reflects that.

[Luna-blu]

.. actually that lady with the funny spots sounds like a bit of a worry :p

Oh that one was :Doh:

[Bear Dale]

learn the craft

Thats interesting. Is photography a craft or a profession?

Profession generally means an occupation requiring time put in obtaining a special education and credentials which photography doesn't necessarily require to be labeled professional, once again it's just a self labeled term used by photographers.

A craft generally denotes the skilled practice of a practical occupation, but not necessarily any formal requirements or special education or institutionalized learning requirements.

[Luna-blu]

Thats interesting. Is photography a craft or a profession?

Profession generally means an occupation requiring time put in obtaining a special education and credentials which photography doesn't necessarily require to be labeled professional, once again it's just a self labeled term used by photographers.

A craft generally denotes the skilled practice of a practical occupation, but not necessarily any formal requirements or special education or institutionalized learning requirements.

Does the terminology matter? craft/profession, nikon/canon, cruiser/patrol tamaytoe/tomato.

It's all skill, regardless of how you learn it or what you call it.

[Longshots]

Err.... excuse me sir! :rolleyes:

your business plan works well for you, Joe Blow's 'business plan' works well for him.. get over it and concentrate on your business, and not tell him how to run his!

Thanks for the Sir - but William will do fine :)


Actually this is exactly what I've been saying all along.

So its no matter to me how much you shout your opinion to me; either I've failed to communicate my point of view all along, or you've clearly misunderstood what I've constantly said. From my perspective I actually completely agree with you on the subject of business plans/charges/fees whatever.

And the photographers that were asked a question still in my view have been saying exactly what I've said before, that unless you know what your costs are, if you're in business (And this is who the article was aimed at), then it simply makes common sense to find out what you actual costs are. From my perspective, it would make no sense to tell someone to charge a far higher rate than they are comfortable with and that they are covering their costs.

You and others tend to think that by doing that its an affront to you as an individual - no one is forcing you to do it, its simply advice. Many newcomers appreciate that. And when someone sits down and starts a proper seminar, and lists the typical standard business costs relating to photography, many people admit that they have not considered some of those costs. Again its worth noting that the people that go to those type of events, are interested in making changes or improvements. Again, no one is forcing anyone how to change their business. The same thing applies to the written word in a magazine.

To draw the topic back to the original question is quite honestly fair enough, and I still think its reasonable to suggest you read it.


And BTW Arthur - I have never said that the "weekend warriors were doing it wrong".

I've also actually said that I didnt completely agree with the comments said in the article.

I've also said that in effect I started as a weekend warrior and am completely self taught.

Finally, I've assisted many people to improve or realise their intent of increasing their photography and its business element; and I've only done that when asked.

I've contributed here, on this specific topic because Rick specifically asked for comments from the Pros point of view. Its a point of view based on reading the article. I've not seen or understood any of that article to dampen or dismiss anyone's aspirations. Again I agree with you there, that no one is in a position to do that, other than the customer and the open market which I entirely support.

[Longshots]

Thats interesting. Is photography a craft or a profession?

Profession generally means an occupation requiring time put in obtaining a special education and credentials which photography doesn't necessarily require to be labeled professional, once again it's just a self labeled term used by photographers.

A craft generally denotes the skilled practice of a practical occupation, but not necessarily any formal requirements or special education or institutionalized learning requirements.

Jim thats an excellent question. Perhaps worth a separate topic ? I've never reached a decision on that one, which is why I either refer to it as an industry or market.

[ricstew]

Hooley dooley this is long. I am glad I read through it. I offer no opinions. There are some very interesting points of view.........lol
cheers
Jan

[Bear Dale]

Jim thats an excellent question. Perhaps worth a separate topic ? I've never reached a decision on that one, which is why I either refer to it as an industry or market.

I did ask that question William on another international forum around 18 months ago.....it didn't end well :(

I don't see calling it a craft has any negative connotations, but many pro's didn't agree with me one whit they thought I was dissing them. To me it's much easier to visually see someone that someone has mastered their craft, than just be told someone is a professional because it's written on their business card or they told you they were.

[kiwi]

I did ask that question William on another international forum around 18 months ago.....it didn't end well :(

I don't see calling it a craft has any negative connotations, but many pro's didn't agree with me one whit they thought I was dissing them. To me it's much easier to visually see someone that someone has mastered their craft, than just be told someone is a professional because it's written on their business card or they told you they were.


I think photography, like most things in business is a skill and competency re terminology in a business, craft is more a personal endeavour but the process and result is the same.

[Kym]

Does the terminology matter? craft/profession, nikon/canon, cruiser/patrol tamaytoe/tomato.
It's all skill, regardless of how you learn it or what you call it.

While fundamentally it is about skill, terminology has very significant market weight.

Ask Jane & Joe Public : Would you want your wedding done by a professional of amateur photographer?

A better question would be: Would you want your wedding done by an experienced/skilled or a beginner photographer?

There is an market expectation of skill when the word professional is used.

[Longshots]

I did ask that question William on another international forum around 18 months ago.....it didn't end well :(

I don't see calling it a craft has any negative connotations, but many pro's didn't agree with me one whit they thought I was dissing them. To me it's much easier to visually see someone that someone has mastered their craft, than just be told someone is a professional because it's written on their business card or they told you they were.


Hey Jim I think we agree :) !!

[I @ M]

I think photography, like most things in business is a skill and competency re terminology in a business, craft is more a personal endeavour but the process and result is the same.

I think the word craft has become synonymous with "arts and craft" as generations progress but I know that when I go to take delivery of my new Rolls Royce I can rest assured that it was built using the finest craftsmanship in the automotive world. :D

[arthurking83]

..... using the finest craftsmanship in the automotive world. :D

:confused:

most professional craftsmanship maybe?

:p

[AmPhot]

Holy dog this thread is epic ! Anyway, as someone who has actually read these articles (I subscribe to Capture at the moment due to a cheap deal) I'll just say this : I like reading this magazine as it does give an insight into the photography industry and the sort of work professionals produce. As a complete amateur hobbyist I only know enough to be dangerous but I'd never dream of trying to sell my shots to the public as a way of earning money to support myself. I found the articles interesting but I did not find them insulting to me as an amateur, I thought it was merely people who work in the industry full time expressing their frustrations with what they are up against. I don't think it was badly worded or overly sensitive, and I would wager you will find similar articles in other professional industry publications.
I do feel the professional (whatever you deem that to mean) versus amateur / weekend warrior (I'm ex-military and I don't find the term insulting as I now am a reservist) is ultimately counter productive to everyone who shares a passion for photography. Do what you love, do the best you can if you're earning a living from it and try not to get hung up on people's opinions (harder for some maybe). ;)

[Luna-blu]

Craft v Profession hmmm,

To be hosest it depends on the market you're selling to,

A fine art photographer could be called a craftsman,
but then wedding professional sounds more like what a bride wants to hear.

I guess like most things if it depends on your market.

[Longshots]

Many thanks AmPhot for reading the article and expressing your thoughts.

[Gremlin]

I kinda agree with Amshots although Ive read it a few times and well meh doesnt really faze me,
apart from that it took 9 pages of thread to remember to comment on the article itself ;)

[bigdazzler]

Im not offended by it whatsoever .. but I feel that if the real purpose of the article was to "offer advice" for newcomers to the industry, as William has stated that he perceived the article, then why the need for the condescending tone and derogatory remarks and choice of words ?? Surely there is a more affable method of offering genuine advice ?? :confused013

PS .. If I ever hear the word "pro" again .. it will be too soon :rolleyes:
PPS ... I will add that some of the comments offered about running a business have sounded like they have been regurgitated from a TAFE text book about "how its supposed to be done."

[Longshots]

Darren if you're not offended by the article, why do you then go on to decsribe it as "the need for the condescending tone and derogatory remarks" ?

Personally I think there is some genuine advice there.

But its all a subjective view point and I can empathise with your view.

I'm quite sure that there intent was something quite different :)

[ricktas]

Darren if you're not offended by the article, why do you then go on to decsribe it as "the need for the condescending tone and derogatory remarks" ?

Personally I think there is some genuine advice there.

But its all a subjective view point and I can empathise with your view.

I'm quite sure that there intent was something quite different :)

I agree, there is some great and genuine information in the article, and even though this thread got a bit heated, if it makes the weekend warrior, someone just starting out, or another PRO, consider their pricing structure and review it, then it has acheived its goal. However, I feel the method of delivery of the message in the article could have been much improved on, which is the basic cause of the ire, that it has evoked.

In the end, discussions like this one, are productive, if nothing else, they have raised the consciousness of the issue of pricing.

[bigdazzler]

William, what I meant was that I found them to be as such in general, and was simply agreeing with Jims original point. Just a general observation really. In the wash-up of it all, I perceive it as a few photographers with their noses out of joint. Thats the only reason I see for the words chosen to express their positions. I just think the dialogue could have been a lot different.

It takes a whole lot to really offend me mate ... In fact, after a re-read last night, and with thouyghts of this thread, I had a good chuckle actually :)

[Longshots]

Yep I can agree with that :)

[jasevk]

I agree, there is some great and genuine information in the article,

In the end, discussions like this one, are productive, if nothing else, they have raised the consciousness of the issue of pricing.

Agreed... As I was reading them I could see that many part-timers would be rubbed up the wrong way... but it just depends entirely on what one does with the information. Do you take it as an attack on how you do your work? Or do you take it as a valuable insight into the workings of seasoned and successful professionals? To me, it was incredibly insightful, and too valuable to dismiss as an attack on WW's... far too valuable

[pvoices1971]

I have watched this thread being started by Jim on 3 forums now and I can honestly say this has been the most spirited of conversations, congratulations for that. I won't say too much as I feel that most has already been said, however as someone who aspires to one day do this full time as a family business I understand the importance of market perception. If you are perceived as someone who does not charge much for your work then it will be difficult to shake that tag, so we have done our cost analysis based on what we need to run this as a business (which includes the cost of day to day living), albeit conservatively at that, and we price accordingly.
I did not start charging until I was confident in my own abilities as a photographer AND a business owner. Don't quote me on this but I suspect the photography business is maybe 20% photography and 80% business, better make sure you got the 80% covered. Sometimes perhaps it is dismissed that this is after all a business and if one wishes to continue in this chosen business some things must happen. You must receive more money than you spend, that is called making a profit, if you continually don't profit from business, you don't have a business, you have an expensive hobby, and expensive hobbies won't pay the mortgage.
However if you don't want to make this your soul income, that is OK too. But I could almost guarantee there are a fair percentage of those hobbyists that one day will think, I reckon I could do this full time, and find themselves thrust into the midst of an undervalued market, where they must either raise prices to meet the new "cost of doing business" or do more work at the same rate to which they were supplying.
As a photographer I would much prefer pursuing my creative needs than doing more of the "sausage factory" get em in, get em out, shoot and burn gigs, but that is an ideal world and is based on my opinion only. I understand that making it in this game is going to be very difficult for the reasons and discussions posted in the previous 9 pages or so and I certainly cannot afford to make the leap until I know I can sustain a living, but I also understand that if I think and act like the person I need/want to become, then my chances are going to be a lot better than if I just accept that I'm a hobbyist that is happy to get some new gear once in a while from my "paid" gigs.
Please understand I'm approaching this from the perspective that I want to be in business, it is in no way a reflection of my thoughts or feelings towards the army of long term hobbyists, l of which I have many friends. Enough from me, and if you have read this to this point, thanks for hanging around to listen.:)

[Bear Dale]

Hey Jim I think we agree :) !!

Common ground!

When I do look at someones website that has stunning work, I don't think to myself "That person is a professional" I think "Thats someone who has mastered their craft".

[Longshots]

Common ground!

When I do look at someones website that has stunning work, I don't think to myself "That person is a professional" I think "Thats someone who has mastered their craft".

Oh god thats twice we agree then :)