View Full Version : Question for the professionals
Bear Dale
20-09-2010, 2:11pm
Do you give your customers the option of digital images on a disk only or do you insist on printing photos?
I think you'll find there's a mix. Most pro photographers I know and work with sit around the (3) & (4) and want to control the quality of printing.
1) everything on disc (raw files), no processing
2) selected/processed images (jpg) on disc at full res
3) selected/processed images (jpg) on disc but not at full resolution (ie. clients can only print up to certain sizes). Photographer takes care of high quality large prints/canvasses etc
4) selected/processed images (jpg) on disc at extra cost and usually a lot...ie. cheaper for client to get a handful of quality prints from photographer
5) prints only
I offer the disk (Campo's option 2) as part of my wedding package - it helps differentiate me I think and i really cant be bothered with printing, albums etc (although there's margin to be had there)
William
20-09-2010, 2:48pm
I'm with Kiwi, Just give them the Disc with the edited images and they can deal with printing :th3:
FYI, I'm on option (3) above
The first thing most clients ask is "do we get a disc with everything?" so I think it's hard to not give them electronic images in some form or another.
I especially love when clients ask for RAW files. My response is usually "what software do you have to handle RAW files from my particular camera" and more often then not I get a "huh? what do you mean?". That's when I explain that they should leave the photography, processing and image conversion up to me!
I used to offer prints only, but EVERYONE wants the digital files, so I've had to start offering them.
I offer them available only with a package. So that way they have to order my minimum package with prints before they get the disk. People seem happy with that, as long as they can get the disk. LOL
I hope that in doing that they can see the quality of the professional printing lab compared to a k-mart print and hopefully order from me in the future if they want more printing done.
My wedding photographer didn't offer the disk when we had our wedding (well he did but a huge extra cost, or free after 2 years) but he has since changed for the same reason... if people cant get the disk they just go 'Oh ok' and go elsewhere. They dont seem to care about anything else these days. He's just upped his package prices (which still includes album/prints) and included the disk in with the packages.
Do you give your customers the option of digital images on a disk only or do you insist on printing photos?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/5007702276_305bdc08bb_t.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zollo13/5007702276/)
Bear Dale
20-09-2010, 5:57pm
No Zollo, I'm interested in the replies.....so you can put your rod away.
I used to offer prints only, but EVERYONE wants the digital files, so I've had to start offering them.
I offer them available only with a package. So that way they have to order my minimum package with prints before they get the disk. People seem happy with that, as long as they can get the disk. LOL
I hope that in doing that they can see the quality of the professional printing lab compared to a k-mart print and hopefully order from me in the future if they want more printing done.
My wedding photographer didn't offer the disk when we had our wedding (well he did but a huge extra cost, or free after 2 years) but he has since changed for the same reason... if people cant get the disk they just go 'Oh ok' and go elsewhere. They dont seem to care about anything else these days. He's just upped his package prices (which still includes album/prints) and included the disk in with the packages.
Exactly, the cheap and easily accessible print options available to the masses now see most people wanting full res disc included at no extra cost because they are sick of being gouged historically $20-40+ for an 8x10 print that retail chains will print for $3.00, and 6x4 that they print for 20c or less.
Many people I feel see photographers who don't offer the hi-res disc or who try to charge huge $ for it as profiteers and dodgy, and why would people pay 10x what it costs to print yourself?
I think only those without the understanding of how to take their disc to the print retailer will settle for paying the photographer for prints.
I think most consumers would be challenged to see the difference between a lab print and a Hardly normal print, and if they can see it, they won't see a $25+ difference.
i will supply images on a disk........at a price. With a lot of clients, prints are useless, but for weddings, if you want a DVD then you have to buy at least one set of prints. This assures me that the client has at least one set of good wet prints, and not inkjet prints done at home or the Kodak One Hour. My opinion is that any photog not offering digital images to clients will have to change their ways, or look for another job. Offering prints only is a throwback to the 90's and prior. There are always exceptions though.
I give all highres files to the clients on disc.
Longshots
21-09-2010, 4:53pm
From the outset, its really important for all viewers to understand the huge difference between the three areas - commercial photography & wedding & portrait photography
And no I dont think this is baiting, I think this would make a great deal of sense if more people would read the information offered.
My clients are 99.9% commercial - so they have almost no need for prints.
So yes, the price I quote includes all finished selected processed hi res digital images. But its worth stating that the price I've agreed with the client before delivering images on disc, is agreed prior to the job. I also tend to suggest a min number (as many clients want to know that information), based on the actual detailed brief I've quoted on.
The big trouble Jim is that many portrait photographers price themselves on an (IMHO) antiquated business model that relies on print prices for them to make a living - ie the price to actually shoot the portrait session is so ridiculously low in some cases, that to actually make a living, at some point the business photographer will need to charge a great deal more than the actual cost of obtaining a print. To charge next to nothing for a portrait session may seem like financial suicide. And it is unless you find someplace to put your costs on. Placing them on the prints, is no longer winning favour in my view. The smart portrait photographers should look more and more at the alternative options for charging in my opinion.
The commercial business models differ hugely and most will have to quote before a job, and the price will have to be "sold", to, and agreed with the client, well before the photographer actually has anything to show the client - hence the need to be able to show previous work etc.
HTH
William, you are correct, I see many portrait photographers still trying to sell prints at extortionate rates, and some even have the audacity to try and charge plenty for the shoot itself.
They might wonder why people are not engaging portrait photographers like they once did, especially with print access so available, and all for peanuts really.
The following is quote from a local portrait part timer here in town;
The cost - $150 session fee with minimum photo purchase $400 (full amount to be paid on booking)
a) 25 processed images provided as 5x7 prints and as web images
OR
b) Photos sizes of your choice from the a la carte pricing to the minimum value of $400 and as web images
OR
c) 12processed images provided as 8x12 hi resolution digital files and as web images
OR
d) $400 towards an album/photo-book (prices vary depending on cover choice and number of pages) and as web images
XXXXXX does not supply a full CD of all digital images from a shoot. Digital images may be purchased on an individual image basis for $60 per 8x12 image, with a minimum purchase of 4 images, or as part of a package deal. If you wish to purchase a full edited set, a quote can be given which will include a discount.
This photographer also offers an "a'la carte" printing menu, which is only given to you upon making an enquiry, when it was once published on the site. I am guessing the pricing in that menu was considered off putting (It was certainly very expensive when I viewed it), so now they at least get contact from you before they scare you.
So a trip to this photographer = $550 minimum, which is I dare say way too much for many people wanting portrait work done.
Longshots
21-09-2010, 6:04pm
$550 is IMHO not a lot if you broke down the time involved.
$550 is IMHO not a lot if you broke down the time involved.
I agree, so after all overheads Wayne what do you think the hourly rate would work out to be ? $100 or so ?
I agree, so after all overheads Wayne what do you think the hourly rate would work out to be ? $100 or so ?
Given what is on offer at the prices quoted, it depends upon what choice of prints you select.
If you take 25x 5x7 and the web images(which is a simple export from LR etc) then processing 25 images takes somewhat more time than the 12x 8x12's in offer (C).
It also depends upon how proficient you are with the PP. The session fee includes up to 1.5hrs, so @$100/hr you have 3.5hrs+ processing time before your rate falls below $100/hr and that is after the cost of prints have been considered.
So is it reasonable to think a competent person can PP 12 - 8x12's or 25 - 5x7's in 3.5hrs?
Oh, and if you want this hi-res digital pics, add $60 per image minimum of 4x on top of the $400 you have to spend on prints. I would think that at these prices, the margin is $100/hr without too much trouble.
I guess to me the package offered here is very poor value, especially with the lack of inclusion and cost of Hi-res files, and essentially my point being some still choose to exclude the Hi-res files unless you pay a kings ransom for them in addition to charging handsomely for prints.
I have had several people ask me to shoot for them, because they simply refuse to pay these prices, and they want the Hi-res digital files so they can print themselves both now and in future.
I know Kiwi you like to get $100/shooting hr, but how often do you get it, honestly?
Excluding shooting sport on spec, which can range from zero per hour to the best I've achieved of 300 pet hour
I seriously will not take on any work at less than $100 per shooting hour, I budget to spend an hour in pp fir each hour shooting, sometimes it works out a bit more or a bit less
But a qualification in this as I really don't do a lot of paid photo work outside sport, a few weddings, a few family portraits, a few events like award nights etc
So, I can't say I speak on any great authority about what's the norm.
Longshots
21-09-2010, 7:16pm
I have had several people ask me to shoot for them, because they simply refuse to pay these prices, and they want the Hi-res digital files so they can print themselves both now and in future.
I know Kiwi you like to get $100/shooting hr, but how often do you get it, honestly?
Well thats the whole point Wayne.
Getting people to pay you for what YOU want is the challenge :) Thats the business. Anyone can find someone cheaper - which isnt the point.
What you need to do is to be able to charge a price which isnt dependant on the print price to make money.
And Kiwi I'm quite sure is in a position to decide what he wants to charge when it comes to photography.
pvoices1971
21-09-2010, 8:39pm
In addition to these comments you cannot dismiss the point that it is still a business and as such there is a cost of doing business (and cost of living if photography is your profession) do the math and I'm sure what may seem like $100/hr is nothing like that in PAYG terms. We don't offer digital files at this stage but it is something we are considering, and it would be limited to 8x12 max size.
Don't forget that if you give digital files the client has them for the life of the file - honestly ask yourself how much that might be worth in print sales. Business is business, let's not forget that.
Longshots
21-09-2010, 9:19pm
In addition to these comments you cannot dismiss the point that it is still a business and as such there is a cost of doing business (and cost of living if photography is your profession) do the math and I'm sure what may seem like $100/hr is nothing like that in PAYG terms. We don't offer digital files at this stage but it is something we are considering, and it would be limited to 8x12 max size.
Don't forget that if you give digital files the client has them for the life of the file - honestly ask yourself how much that might be worth in print sales. Business is business, let's not forget that.
I'm assuming you're a portrait/wedding shooter ?
While I completely agree with your comments about the comparison with PAYG. I'd have to respond to you on the other points.
What many of my peers forget is that more and more people simply dont have the need for prints.
My clients have rarely wanted prints - even prior to digital.
And in my view there isnt a 8 x 12 digital image available that cant be printed to a fairly acceptable level into a wall sized canvas. So there's little point in thinking that you are limiting what you provide.
pvoices1971
21-09-2010, 9:58pm
I'm assuming you're a portrait/wedding shooter ?
While I completely agree with your comments about the comparison with PAYG. I'd have to respond to you on the other points.
What many of my peers forget is that more and more people simply dont have the need for prints.
My clients have rarely wanted prints - even prior to digital.
And in my view there isnt a 8 x 12 digital image available that cant be printed to a fairly acceptable level into a wall sized canvas. So there's little point in thinking that you are limiting what you provide.
Yes I do portrait photography, and I understand completely and respect the situation with commercial photography. As for the 8x12 that has to do with market perception and me placing value in the work that I do, I don't disagree that yes you could print it larger for sure and if they had photoshop they could do a decent enlargement again , but then if they have PS they probably have a DSLR and they would not have come to me in the first place.
I would probably tend to disagree that people don't need prints, they said the same thing about newspapers (my F/T job) and a significant market sector will always want to buy the newspaper and feel it between their fingers rather than view it online, I think they same will always apply with photography as well, albeit that it may be a diminishing market.:)
Well thats the whole point Wayne.
What you need to do is to be able to charge a price which isnt dependant on the print price to make money.
Which my example clearly shows, that the "old" thinking of rorting the print pricing to make the work viable is alive and well, at least here anyway, and further affirms there are still those doing business that are reluctant to hand over the digital files. That was my whole point of posting the quoted pricing.
And Kiwi I'm quite sure is in a position to decide what he wants to charge when it comes to photography.
His own words, not mine....
elGrando
22-09-2010, 1:36am
Just out of curiosity as a noob I get my photos printed at Camera house as in a rural area there isnt much of an option that I know of other than the elcheapo kmart etc. Where do you professionals get your shots printed?
Also I was recently PISSED OFF that my wife paid $190 for a single portrait of our 2 kids about A4 ( no idea wat size) framed in a piece of coloured cardboard. My mum told her it was a free sitting and you only pay if you want a photo. I had no idea until the photo was delivered and went off about it. As I said im a noob but the photo was bloody ordinary.
Just to add so theres no criticism that they spent hours shooting and processing it only lasted about 15 minutes and my PP skills as ordinary as they are could have done a decent job
Longshots
22-09-2010, 5:33am
I would probably tend to disagree that people don't need prints
I didnt say that, and havent ever said that.
What I said was "My clients have rarely wanted prints - even prior to digital.". That's MY CLIENTS, who I described as 99.9% commercial.
So you're disagreeing with my comment about what My clients want ? - ah yes thats good you clearly know my clients better than me ;)
Longshots
22-09-2010, 6:01am
Just out of curiosity as a noob I get my photos printed at Camera house as in a rural area there isnt much of an option that I know of other than the elcheapo kmart etc. Where do you professionals get your shots printed?
Depends on your location in what might be the best recommendation for you. But you could easily seek a few of the better labs in capital cities and they'll send your order by post to you - Digilab in Brisbane is one place I would recommend. But I rarely need to get any prints done, and when I do need to produce the rare print, I prefer to use my own inhouse printing on an Epson 3800
pvoices1971
22-09-2010, 7:20am
What many of my peers forget is that more and more people simply dont have the need for prints.
I didnt say that, and havent ever said that.
What I said was "My clients have rarely wanted prints - even prior to digital.". That's MY CLIENTS, who I described as 99.9% commercial.
So you're disagreeing with my comment about what My clients want ? - ah yes thats good you clearly know my clients better than me ;)
No Longshots I'm disagreeing with the first quote - of course I don't know your clients - when you say peers I assumed you meant photographers, perhaps you could have better defined that as commercial photographers. Hope that provides some clarification for you;)
now that i have gone back to shooting weddings with film, my $/hr net has risen dramatically due to the convenience of the medium, despite the cost incurred for consumables per job. i know that if i'm doing a job with digital, my $/hr charged need to be higher in order to maintain the same bottom line. i need to account for hire costs as well as post processing.
i tend to also think that, despite many clients not wanting prints (virtually all of mine want at least some, commercial clients exc.), they will be valued far more in years to come, than the 400 digital files they have sitting on a hard drive that are long forgotten. Just a handful, maybe not even that is all they need, but i make sure my clients have at least that.
terry.langham
22-09-2010, 8:10am
Given what is on offer at the prices quoted, it depends upon what choice of prints you select.
If you take 25x 5x7 and the web images(which is a simple export from LR etc) then processing 25 images takes somewhat more time than the 12x 8x12's in offer (C).
It also depends upon how proficient you are with the PP. The session fee includes up to 1.5hrs, so @$100/hr you have 3.5hrs+ processing time before your rate falls below $100/hr and that is after the cost of prints have been considered.
So is it reasonable to think a competent person can PP 12 - 8x12's or 25 - 5x7's in 3.5hrs?
Oh, and if you want this hi-res digital pics, add $60 per image minimum of 4x on top of the $400 you have to spend on prints. I would think that at these prices, the margin is $100/hr without too much trouble.
I guess to me the package offered here is very poor value, especially with the lack of inclusion and cost of Hi-res files, and essentially my point being some still choose to exclude the Hi-res files unless you pay a kings ransom for them in addition to charging handsomely for prints.
I have had several people ask me to shoot for them, because they simply refuse to pay these prices, and they want the Hi-res digital files so they can print themselves both now and in future.
Don't forget to factor in the cost to rent a premises for a studio/office, the 15min spent on the initial phone inquiry, the 30min spent at the first 'appointment' to 'sell' the product to the client, the 30min to select the photos for a given package, the time spent when the prints are picked up, and time spent making phone calls during the process, as well as the cost of phones, electricity etc.
Personally I don't think the given example is expensive at all. But then again I am probably a bit biased to the photographer as I too run a small business.
When my clients ask why prints are so expensive, I simply explain to them that it takes time to prepare a print for printing - whether it be photoshopping, cropping, changing aspect ratio or factoring in time to meet with them. I find after explaining and educating the clients a little, they're more receptive and understanding that it's not simply a matter of (Price) - (Cost of print) = (profit)
virgal_tracy
22-09-2010, 10:17am
I guess to me the package offered here is very poor value, especially with the lack of inclusion and cost of Hi-res files, and essentially my point being some still choose to exclude the Hi-res files unless you pay a kings ransom for them in addition to charging handsomely for prints.
I have had several people ask me to shoot for them, because they simply refuse to pay these prices, and they want the Hi-res digital files so they can print themselves both now and in future.
There are many analogies that you can use to argue with this. Your whole point about clients wanting to print the images themselves brings up a couple of issues mainly relating to both loss of income for the photographer and also the representation of the photographers skill by possibly poor quality reprints. (certainly not saying that the Big W's and H.N.'s of this world can not supply quality prints, just generally don't)
When you go to a restaurant for dinner, do you ask the chef for the recipe? Do you think they would give it to you?
If you have a project home built do you think you could take those plans to another builder to have that same house built by someone else? (architects are different in that you will pay much more for the plans)
When my clients ask why prints are so expensive, I simply explain to them that it takes time to prepare a print for printing - whether it be photoshopping, cropping, changing aspect ratio or factoring in time to meet with them. I find after explaining and educating the clients a little, they're more receptive and understanding that it's not simply a matter of (Price) - (Cost of print) = (profit)
This again doesn't even go into paying for the software, training, skill, equipment, insurance etc ,etc,etc. I also ask clients to value their own time. How long would it take them to get images of the quality I provide, prepare them for printing, take them to wherever for printing, wait for the printing to be done and then travel home again. When they start to think about this they realise that they aren't that expensive at all.
This again doesn't even go into paying for the software, training, skill, equipment, insurance etc ,etc,etc. I also ask clients to value their own time. How long would it take them to get images of the quality I provide, prepare them for printing, take them to wherever for printing, wait for the printing to be done and then travel home again. When they start to think about this they realise that they aren't that expensive at all.
Exactly and well said!
Don't forget to factor in the cost to rent a premises for a studio/office, the 15min spent on the initial phone inquiry, the 30min spent at the first 'appointment' to 'sell' the product to the client, the 30min to select the photos for a given package, the time spent when the prints are picked up, and time spent making phone calls during the process, as well as the cost of phones, electricity etc.
Personally I don't think the given example is expensive at all. But then again I am probably a bit biased to the photographer as I too run a small business.
Terry, this photographer has a huge studio but fortunately it is free, it is known as the great outdoors! They don't do studio shots unless you are providing the studio, house, venue etc.....I agree, you may be biased.
Clearly the number of people asking me to shoot for them, who have seen this photographers pricing and comment to me what a "rip off" it is, demonstrates without doubt that the market (remember things are only as valuable as the market permits them to be) here feels it is for the most part poor value.
There are many analogies that you can use to argue with this. Your whole point about clients wanting to print the images themselves brings up a couple of issues mainly relating to both loss of income for the photographer and also the representation of the photographers skill by possibly poor quality reprints. (certainly not saying that the Big W's and H.N.'s of this world can not supply quality prints, just generally don't)
When you go to a restaurant for dinner, do you ask the chef for the recipe? Do you think they would give it to you?
If you have a project home built do you think you could take those plans to another builder to have that same house built by someone else? (architects are different in that you will pay much more for the plans)
This again doesn't even go into paying for the software, training, skill, equipment, insurance etc ,etc,etc. I also ask clients to value their own time. How long would it take them to get images of the quality I provide, prepare them for printing, take them to wherever for printing, wait for the printing to be done and then travel home again. When they start to think about this they realise that they aren't that expensive at all.
When you pay an architect you get the plans, and why couldn't you get any qualified builder to build to plan?
The food a chef serves is very different in that you can't simply reproduce it like you can with a print, if you want it again, you start from scratch with raw ingredients, a photo is finished, simply print away. I fail to see the relationship between these two.
Regardless of the feeling many precious professional photographers have, your ability to keep digital files, and/or charge extortionate prices for them along with prints is dying. The market commands better value. Ignore that at your peril.
I reckon anyone getting anywhere near $100/hr for photographic work is doing pretty well, especially part time operators. Many people with tertiary qualifications who have done 4+ years at uni earn much less. Granted photography costs for the gear, but it is a depreciable asset and amortised over it's life the cost per use for a busy pro is quite small.
pvoices1971
22-09-2010, 2:31pm
When you pay an architect you get the plans, and why couldn't you get any qualified builder to build to plan?
The food a chef serves is very different in that you can't simply reproduce it like you can with a print, if you want it again, you start from scratch with raw ingredients, a photo is finished, simply print away. I fail to see the relationship between these two.
Regardless of the feeling many precious professional photographers have, your ability to keep digital files, and/or charge extortionate prices for them along with prints is dying. The market commands better value. Ignore that at your peril.
I reckon anyone getting anywhere near $100/hr for photographic work is doing pretty well, especially part time operators. Many people with tertiary qualifications who have done 4+ years at uni earn much less. Granted photography costs for the gear, but it is a depreciable asset and amortised over it's life the cost per use for a busy pro is quite small.
Clearly different photographers cater to different markets. What I would like you to consider is how much your hourly cost of living is and if you are doing this as a business combine that with your hourly cost of business and see how much you have left out of $100/hour (working hours). Ignore that at your peril.;)
The food a chef serves is very different in that you can't simply reproduce it like you can with a print, if you want it again, you start from scratch with raw ingredients, a photo is finished, simply print away. I fail to see the relationship between these two.
a chef isn't going to give away his recipe for free...likewise, a photographer isn't going to give away his "recipe" for a good photograph/print for free either.
I reckon anyone getting anywhere near $100/hr for photographic work is doing pretty well, especially part time operators. Many people with tertiary qualifications who have done 4+ years at uni earn much less.
This is the problem, it's not $100/hr cash in pocket. It's $100/hr less expenses/taxes etc,!! In fact you'd probably find that most uni graduates earn more then most photographers! Trust me, I know what I earn in my day job, and after doing the business plan etc it's highly unlikely I'll see this amount of income when I start running my photography business full time!
If people want a specialised professional service, they need to be prepared to pay for it. Meanwhile, I'm happy for all the backyard amateur photographers to take the clients who want everything for nothing :-) good luck to them :)
yip, when i did my accounts I still made a considerable paper loss. I could charge double and still not make a profit if you take into account depreciation, software, insurance, memberships etc etc
I offer packages that include a mix of prints and digital files, but many choose to buy just digital files. My sessioon-fee is $125 and I sell 18 fully edited full resolution files for $700 (which I actually think I need to raise) or all edited images (20 in colour and those same images in black and white) for $899 (needs to go up too). I need to sell for $599 to get an hourly wage of about $30 (AFTER tax)... there's so much to factor in.. studio rent, insurance ($700 a year), website cost, props, savings for new equipment. I spend about 10 hours in total on each client (2 hours on the shoot, 30min travel, 30min emailing, 5 hours editing (I specialise in newborns, lots of baby acne, jaundice, red patches etc), 1 hour viewing session, 1 hour printing and packaging, accounting. I average sales at around $700-900, which is very average and when properly factoring in all the expenses and time involved not a huge profit (don't forget time spent on your business in general, like marketing, updating your website, uploading to facebook or blog - you want to pay yourself for that time too). I think way too many people price themselves too low and don't realise that they've actually ended up working for $10 an hour!!!!! $30 an hour after tax (and ALL expenses etc etc) is my minimum pay that I will do this job for, and I have my packages set up in a way that I never have sales less than that. My $399 package includes hardly anything and I have never sold it for that reason.
Back to the actual question. If they buy the disc I give them a recommendation of a great, local lab where the printing is fantastic.
Wow Minna, putting it all in writing you can certainly see the cost of what you are doing!
I charge a lot less than that at the moment, but I feel I'm still just merging into the industry. I dont make much of a profit at all at the moment (actually I run at a loss) it's mostly about getting the experience and portfolio building at this stage for me. I dont have a studio either... my loungroom gets converted into a studio prior to a shoot (or we go out on location).
I'll be upping my prices soon, but that's because I'm adding more procuts to my packages (photo boxes, albums etc.). I think people seem to be happy to walk away with somthing physical rather than loose prints and a disk.
I should up my prices i think because my disk usually contains around 50 fully edited images x3 (colour, B&W and Sepia) so around 150 images all up. It's a lot of processing to do especially if I'm doing my branches etc. where you have to clone out mum/dad's hands & bodies, beanbag etc.
Hi Liss :-)
I spent a year portfolio-building and did all my sessions for nothing, only prints at print-price. Then when I set up my website and decided to start charing a bit I put my "where I want to be in a couple of years prices" on my website as my prices, but in brackets I put "current special offer .... " (and then the discounted price, which I felt comfortable with charging as I was only starting out. By doing it this way, clients will not be hugely shocked when prices slowly go up, they understand that they got it at a discounted price and the prices stated are what is usually charged.
That's a great idea Minna, something I might have to consider doing!
I currently dont have my prices displayed online, people contact me for a price list. And I did that for that reason... I dont want to shock people or upset them, having them say 'Oh but last month your price was only $XX.XX'.
Plans for the future include my own studio, but it is more along the lines of building one in the back yard. (We're moving soon, most houses in the area have side/rear lane access, so hoping I can section off an area just for my studio). So as I prepare for that it's going to cost a fair bit. I'm going to have to cover the cost somehow! But the end results should mean a better product and enviroment for my clinets :) Very excited about it!
You've always been happy to help and give advice, I appreciate it alot. xx
Gremlin
23-09-2010, 1:15am
Liss, youve probably already covered this but, just incase, if your building a studio and plan to work from there, ensure youve got council approval, and public liabilty insurance, you dont want one anonymous phone call to the council to ruin everything. Just a thought. Just something else to factor into your costs.
Thanks Gremlin. Yes absoloutly have thought about all of that. It's still a little while off yet (12 months +) so we will worry about that side of it as it gets closer to the time. Have to move first... and then look for the 'right' house. Plans might change n the meantime too depending on the house, yard and of course the council approval. But that is where we are aiming at this stage :)
minnum
23-09-2010, 10:15am
Liss that sounds AWESOME, I think it would be so great to have a studio like that. We live in an apartment now so home-studio is completely out of the question for us. I think it is a good plan too with emailing prices so they are not online.
I do option 3 as posted as above but my digi packs also include some prints. I do like clients to see good quality prints so they see the difference after they take their disc to kmart :/
NicolePearce
02-10-2010, 3:12pm
I like to offer Prints and a disc but specify where to print, I've got examples of prints from a few print places like Big W Domayne etc so show them that there is a difference. There is a place in NSW that do take orders from public not just professionals and they use good equipment and suggest my clients use them http://www.photoking.com/index.html they post images to you. Personally I use Nulab in Victoria, they are great and I find the process easy to use with uploading files etc the reason I use Nulab and not photoking is that I used Nulab first and have no need to swap.
Bear Dale
02-10-2010, 3:25pm
The days of the ubiquitous wedding photo on the mantle piece could be coming to and end for a lot of people.
These people may have no use what so ever for an actual print. They maybe have much more use for digital images for their iPhone, digital frames, Face-book, email and the plethora of ways to use a digital image.
Personally I use Nulab in Victoria, they are great and I find the process easy to use with uploading files etc the reason I use Nulab and not photoking is that I used Nulab first and have no need to swap.
I use Nulab too, I was impressed with the prints from my wedding so I asked my wedding photographer who he uses. There were 2 that he used, Nulab was one. Tried them first and was happy with how it worked and the quality so I've stuck with them.
Longshots
04-10-2010, 6:58pm
No Longshots I'm disagreeing with the first quote - of course I don't know your clients - when you say peers I assumed you meant photographers, perhaps you could have better defined that as commercial photographers. Hope that provides some clarification for you;)
My point was and still is that in the overall marketplace, the need for prints has become less and less. That is an indisputable fact. That situation does effect all photographers. I did not mean to imply that comment was relating just one area of photography. Apologies for any confusion here.
In my personal view the issue of many photographers charging a small/modest fee on the basis that they can cover their costs with high print charges is now no longer viable. That was the opinion I was offering to the OP's original question.
So while you're welcome to disagree with my opinion, I'll restate my response, to the question which specifically states "Question for the Professionals":
The big trouble Jim is that many portrait photographers price themselves on an (IMHO) antiquated business model that relies on print prices for them to make a living - ie the price to actually shoot the portrait session is so ridiculously low in some cases, that to actually make a living, at some point the business photographer will need to charge a great deal more than the actual cost of obtaining a print. To charge next to nothing for a portrait session may seem like financial suicide. And it is unless you find someplace to put your costs on. Placing them on the prints, is no longer winning favour in my view. The smart portrait photographers should look more and more at the alternative options for charging in my opinion.
pvoices1971
08-10-2010, 5:21pm
My point was and still is that in the overall marketplace, the need for prints has become less and less. That is an indisputable fact. That situation does effect all photographers. I did not mean to imply that comment was relating just one area of photography. Apologies for any confusion here.
In my personal view the issue of many photographers charging a small/modest fee on the basis that they can cover their costs with high print charges is now no longer viable. That was the opinion I was offering to the OP's original question.
So while you're welcome to disagree with my opinion, I'll restate my response, to the question which specifically states "Question for the Professionals":
You make some good points William, afterall you are the professional in this equation.;) Sure the need for prints is less but we don't base our business model on clients needing our service we base it on clients wanting our services and that is a big difference.
Dan Cripps
13-10-2010, 10:16am
Regardless of the feeling many precious professional photographers have, your ability to keep digital files, and/or charge extortionate prices for them along with prints is dying. The market commands better value. Ignore that at your peril.
I guess the fact that my print sale average (per shoot) is steadily increasing must be an anomaly in the industry.
If it's growing, it can't be dying. Right?
Redgum
13-10-2010, 11:55am
My point was and still is that in the overall marketplace, the need for prints has become less and less. That is an indisputable fact. That situation does effect all photographers. I did not mean to imply that comment was relating just one area of photography. Apologies for any confusion here.
In my personal view the issue of many photographers charging a small/modest fee on the basis that they can cover their costs with high print charges is now no longer viable. That was the opinion I was offering to the OP's original question.
So while you're welcome to disagree with my opinion, I'll restate my response, to the question which specifically states "Question for the Professionals":
This is terrible, having to agree with William but of course he is spot on.
I think there is always a lot of confusion over this question because a number people on this forum are part time professionals (their main income stream is from other sources). A recent poll by Kiwi revealed only six members here as working the trade full time.
Most here represent the wedding/portrait/family photographer which in real terms is less than 1% of the profession so when you ask the question about prints the answer will be slanted toward printing. In reality, as Longshots said, printing is no longer relevant to mainstream professionals, the other 99% of the trade. It would be helpful if questions were delivered to wedding/portrait photographers (in this case) rather than generalising and using the word "professional". After all most have admitted they don't make a living from photography and in a real sense are not professionals at all (just good photographers).
Like Longshots, I can't remember the last time I did a serious print and would outsource all that work now. The overheads versus the profit is just not there. But then again I'm a mainstream professional working in journalism, newspapers and the corporate/industrial area none of which would know how to handle a print anyway. High quality digital images is all they want and this has been the case for the last five years. Even agencies want nothing other than the digital image so they can control their client and provide international services (distribution).
Out of interest, at a network breakfast the other week a senior representative of a major bank outlined those industries they WOULD NOT finance and right at the top was photography. The overrider was "a contract". If you have a substantial contract for work funding is a different issue. I only say this because bank managers simply reflect the community/business importance of a particular trade and in this case must often see failure in start-up photography businesses.
I don't think the need for prints has become less. I think it's more a case of the need for digital has increased due to social media and all those cool (or kitchy) things you can have your photo put onto.
The majority of my clients want printed photos to put on their walls and they want albums! Beautiful physical images that they can hold and look at without having to flick a switch.
I have many happy clients that appreciate the hard work I put in and also understand that I charge what I do because (like Minna) I pay tax, insurance, provide props, website costs, ongoing education, new equipment, spend hours touching blemishes etc. I spend the time to educate the ones that don't and ask why I charge what I do. They don't always end up booking and may choose the cheaper operator but I'm fine with that because I don't need (or want) to photograph everyone! My work is mainly from word of mouth so I'm obviously making people happy enough to pay what I charge.
I am actually working out a new pricing structure that will probably include digital files. I'm leaning more to making it an all inclusive thing. Forget the sitting fee and then add on a package deal and just charge them an upfront amount for the whole lot included. Maybe ;)
Dan Cripps
13-10-2010, 4:50pm
Out of interest, at a network breakfast the other week a senior representative of a major bank outlined those industries they WOULD NOT finance and right at the top was photography. The overrider was "a contract". If you have a substantial contract for work funding is a different issue. I only say this because bank managers simply reflect the community/business importance of a particular trade and in this case must often see failure in start-up photography businesses.
We must be the anomaly in this area, too, as we have a great relationship with our bank. :)
We must be the anomaly in this area, too, as we have a great relationship with our bank. :)
Of course but we won't tell anyone about that Zeke. I just flew my bank manager to Indonesia so there must be some good relationships out there. Apart from you and I though it appears most photographers are going to have a difficult time looking for bank investment in their business, that's an industry thing which in retrospect probably won't affect anyone here because they would put up there home as collateral. Just a nice thing to know if starting a business is in prospect. Back to the topic? :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.