[Closed] Professional Portrait Photography = Blackmail

We hired a pro for the eldest daughter's wedding - a newbie with excellent people and compositional skills, but little technical knowledge.
Fortunately, the student she'd brought with her as an assistant, shy young lad who was a bit nervous ordering people around, turned out to have a wonderful feel for light and exposure and knew his kit backward.
They made a very effective team.

I have a DSLR and a reasonable lense. I can't help but think that a decent book on composition and a half day taking a lot of images would give equally good results.

I though we only had plumbers on here, apparently there's a load of professional photographers as well. What a talented bunch.

captainsasquatch

If only we could find a person with both these attributes rolled into one. They'd be worth a fortune. 😕

Yeah but only if they used their talents for evil, like making money. That's basically blackmail.

Yeah but only if they used their talents for evil, like making money. That's basically blackmail.

Porsche Macan.

captainsasquatch - Member

If only we could find a person with both these attributes rolled into one. They'd be worth a fortune.

I didn't book them!
Wedding planning?
Bugger all to do with me.
The photographer knew her technical limitations, which is why she had an assistant.
Turned out well in the end, some excellent images.
🙂

jimjam - Member
Porsche Macan

[quote=jimjam ]I'd love to see a wedding photographer hand over a few hundred out of focus, under lit badly framed shots and explain to the client that the quality doesn't matter since it's all about memories.

Strangely enough pretty much all of the pics of memories I've taken on my phone are in focus, well lit and I usually manage to avoid cutting off people's heads. I'm certainly not claiming to be a professional photographer, but then you list a load of requirements I'd expect the average amateur with a DSLR to be able to manage.

"As a photographer I'm so glad I don't have to hawk my skills to the general public as on the whole they are a nightmare!
Owning a violin doesn't make you a violinist etc etc."

I've heard a lot of ignorant nonsense about the 'value' of photography/photographers, and the reality is that we are living in a world where access to photography is a lot easier for more people, but I really don't think this has led to an increase in quality. If anything, technological advances have led to a situation where technical competency isn't as important; you don't have to get it 'right' in camera, when you can Photoshop it afterwards. What we are left with is 'imaging technicians', not 'photographers'. People who can produce an acceptable image that fulfils a brief, rather than being able to produce anything truly unique, or of significant artistic merit. Which is fine if all you need to do is illustrate an article, but not so great in terms of the evolution of photography as an art form. I see increasing exhibitions of artistically poor, yet technically good work, which leaves me cold. And social media is full of crap photos that have been put through some cheesy Instagram filter, with peoples' friends gushing 'what an amazing photo!', without knowing what an amazing photo actually looks like.

I decided to never bother pursuing photography as a 'career', as I just didn't want to end up doing what other people thought looked good. So I just carried on doing my own thing, honing my craft in the way I wanted to. I get the odd commission through friends and that, but I only accept to do jobs that I will find challenging and interesting. I get the odd bit of work based on merit; people choose [i]me[/i] to do some photos, because they like [i]my[/i] work. Fortunately I don't have to make a living from photography. But if I did, I'd find it soul destroying that some pompous arse thinks my time isn't worth a decent rate. £200 for a set of studio pictures is **** all; a decent studio set up will run to many thousands, then there's rents, rates, insurance etc. If I didn't know you, I wouldn't give you the time of day if you didn't think a big chunk of my time, not to mention countless years spent trying to become a better photographer, etc etc etc, wasn't worth £200.

So, go and buy yourself a camera and DIY. While you're at it, why not buy yourself some woodworking tools, make your own furniture; can't be too hard to make something better than what you can buy in IKEA, for less money, surely?

not so great in terms of the evolution of photography as an art form.

is that really peoples intention when they purchase a camera? a quick search of the internet would show that sunsets/cats/progeny/your gear laid out on a table to appease your peers and show your disposable income/narcissistic selfies are the main reasons for using a camera.

becoming a future icon of photographic art doesn't seem to be on the agenda.

"a quick search of the internet would show that sunsets/cats/progeny/your gear laid out on a table to appease your peers and show your disposable income/narcissistic selfies are the main reasons for using a camera."

😆

Maybe I'm a bit behind the times; I got into photography because it fascinated me as an art form, and I loved the work of various iconic photographers. I've never seen myself as a 'future icon of photographic art', but I'm always trying to be better and to take better photographs. Seems an increasing amount of 'photographers now aren't actually too bothered about the actual craft of photography, and more interested in expressing largely unoriginal ideas. Given the technology available, I'm surprised we aren't seeing a lot better than what's often on offer.

But then, perhaps that speaks more of a crisis in art, than just in photography alone.

I'd find it soul destroying that some pompous arse thinks my time isn't worth a decent rate

Thing is, the public doesn't owe a photographer a living. If people don't think it's worth £200 for a set of photos, then it isn't. So the fool is the one trying to make a living selling something that simply isn't worth it. You can't simply shout at the public for not thinking portraits are worth the money.

But then, perhaps that speaks more of a crisis in art, than just in photography alone.

No, just that your exposure to people's hobby work is much greater than it ever has been.

150 years ago when every middle class young person was painting watercolours and knocking out piano tunes in the parlour most of them were shit too - but you never heard of them unless you were in their family, and they certainly weren't preserved for us to see.

"You can't simply shout at the public for not thinking portraits are worth the money."

But you have every right to shout at someone who doesn't understand the value of your time, simply because they are ignorant. Do you work for minimum wage?

But you have every right to shout at someone who doesn't understand the value of your time, simply because they are ignorant

But in this case their opinion of the value IS the value. It might take someone a year to craft a life sized realistic sculpture of Donald Trump, but I wouldn't pay them thirty grand for it regardless of the skill it took.

I don't want portrait photographs at any price. Should I be shouted at for this by portrait photographers? If someone else doens't want them for any price over £100, how is this different? The price a key factor in the value decision customers make.

But you have every right to shout at someone who doesn't understand the value of your time, simply because they are ignorant. Do you work for minimum wage?

Depends, if your time is really worth what you think it is, why are you shouting at anyone? You'd be busy earning what you think you're worth. If you're not and having to shout at people, then you're evidently not worth what you think you are......

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something. It's one thing to say [i]"I don't want that, no thank you"[/i] and [i]"I could easily do that because I own the tools"[/i].

I'd say nearly every artist (or person in creative industries) has had some **** tell them what their work was worth and/or how they could do it.

My most hilarious/depressing was an ad pitch with an old toff who used to be high up in a London ad agency and had bought a Belfast based agency as a pet project for his son Sean (who we hadn't met). We developed character designs and storyboarded the ad out to the old guy's spec. The target style/quality benchmark was Toy Story 2.

So Sean arrives an hour late (on a Sunday) in his Boxster (top down, oakleys/scarf/drving gloves) and silently peruses the work. Asks how much it will cost.

We tell him the price and he coughs, spits and guffaws.
[i][b]
"How can you justify that price when all you do is download these drawings into the computer and the computer will animated them for you!?"[/b][/i]

Watching my colleague go purple as he stifled his rage is a memory that I'll take to my grave.

My job pays because people need the work done. How much it pays depends on how many other people have the same skill.

I could easily do that because I own the tools

Or - I could easily do something *good enough* for free because I own the tools.

Quite a few people on here set up their own home IT infrastructure. I don't complain about them not spending £1500 a day on IT consultancy do I?

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something.

If you have to do that, you're in the wrong business and pissing in the wind...

A timely thread - had an email from a client this morning who is "very disappointed" that he's not getting a free set of full sized downloads for his £40 session fee.

Everything included is very clearly set out on the website and printed gift voucher. He bought the session himself ffs.

footflaps

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something.

If you have to do that, you're in the wrong business and pissing in the wind...

Quite a difference between doing it to prospective clients and rebuffing some drivel on a forum.

molgrips

I could easily do that because I own the tools

Or - I could easily do something *good enough* for free because I own the tools.

We can't see the portrait photographers work, nor can we see the op's work to gauge whether this is laughable nonsense or true. At one end of the spectrum the op might be a gifted amateur and the pro might be a cack handed charlatan. On the other hand the op might be cack handed and deluded and the photographer in question might be a master of the craft.

I could easily race off shore powerboats if I owned one. How well I would do is another question.

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something.

If you have to do that, you're in the wrong business and pissing in the wind...

not really, sometimes i still have to educate clients as to why something costs £x, has to be done a certain way or it’s worth spending on other aspects of the job (proper models/locations/backgrounds/set builds etc)

99% of the time they see the value of that in the images produced or trust my judgment because my work shows i’m not bullshitting them and have delivered on many previous jobs.

that said a high street photographer is going to have to show value by producing quality, not a mottled brown background with a grimacing group photo chavs in their sunday best.

i have a phrase i borrowed from somewhere “cost is only a factor in the absence of value”
only had to use it a couple of times 🙂

"No, just that your exposure to people's hobby work is much greater than it ever has been.

150 years ago when every middle class young person was painting watercolours and knocking out piano tunes in the parlour most of them were shit too - but you never heard of them unless you were in their family, and they certainly weren't preserved for us to see."

Good point. However, learning to paint or play the piano requires a fair bit more personal application than pressing the button on a smartphone. As does learning about studio lighting, etc. What saddens me, is that those curating often appear to have very little idea about what actual photography entails, and choose to exhibit based on the notion of style over substance.

"I don't want portrait photographs at any price. Should I be shouted at for this by portrait photographers? If someone else doens't want them for any price over £100, how is this different? The price a key factor in the value decision customers make."

So by your logic, if I decide I don't want to pay a bricklayer/plumber/IT consultant what they charge, I shouldn't have to? Just pay them minimum wage then, yeah?

"Depends, if your time is really worth what you think it is, why are you shouting at anyone? You'd be busy earning what you think you're worth. If you're not and having to shout at people, then you're evidently not worth what you think you are......"

So the plumber/bricklayer etc can't shout at me if I tell them I'm only giving them £50 for their work? Excellent. Any future work I need done will be so much cheaper. 😀

What saddens me, is that those curating often appear to have very little idea about what actual photography entails, and choose to exhibit based on the notion of style over substance.

Why should it sadden you? It's always going to be the case, and so it should be. If everyone was brilliant no-one would be. My point was that in any endeavour, most people could do it, some can do it well and very few can do it brilliantly. No need to get sad about it any more than the fact I'm shit at tennis 🙂

So by your logic, if I decide I don't want to pay a bricklayer/plumber/IT consultant what they charge, I shouldn't have to? Just pay them minimum wage then, yeah?

No, because those are necessary purchases and have minimum standards. Very different situation. If I put a snap on my wall, that I like, it's of zero consequence; but heating needs to function and be done to spec.

However I wouldn't expect to pay a plumber triple because he described himself as artisan and made the pipes look lovely 🙂 But someone might. If you think there's a market then fine, but don't whinge if you don't get much work.

sometimes i still have to educate clients as to why something costs £x

Slightly different for you though MrSmith - your clients might be oblivious to how their products need to be displayed. The quality of your shots has consequence, like the plumber's work. And the client might not be aware of that.

If everyone was brilliant no-one would be.

A picture is worth a 1000 words etc.....

[img] [/img]

Basically, half of professional photographers are below average (for professional photography) 🙂

Quite a few people on here set up their own home IT infrastructure. I don't complain about them not spending £1500 a day on IT consultancy do I?

That's possibly a better analogy than you think.

A home network can be thrown together and probably work, I can happily punch down a Krone point with the best of them. It's a vastly different prospect to designing and building an enterprise-grade LAN / WAN infrastructure. For the latter, I'd be looking at getting in a professional designer and a structured cabling engineer who knows how to use a Fluke tester.

Or to put it another way, do you want a professional portrait, or do you want a couple of .jpg selfies you can stick on Facebook? If it's the latter then stick your dSLR in Auto and fill your boots.

No, because those are necessary purchases and have minimum standards. Very different situation. If I put a snap on my wall, that I like, it's of zero consequence; but heating needs to function and be done to spec.

I think this may be a straw man. What relevance does it have whether it's essential or a luxury? Do you throw standards out of the window for luxury purchases? Arguably the reverse may even be true; would you agonise more over your next model of bike or your next model of boiler?

To you (and me TBH), having a family portrait on the wall isn't overly high on the priorities list, but for others it might well be massively important. Reckon the Beckhams have photos of little Romeo and whatever the other one is called, S****horpe or something, hanging on the wall taken by one of their mates who thinks he can take good photos because he has a dSLR and read a photography magazine once?

Why spend several grand on a bike when you can get one from ASDA for £100? Why bother with an AV system when you can play music on your phone?

It boils down to this: You're paying a premium product. If you don't [i]want[/i] a premium product that's perfectly fine, stick to your hobbyist options for something that's arguably "almost" as good.

For example, I have any number of friends with expensive cameras, some of whom take simply incredible photos that as a hobbyist myself I can only dream of being good enough to take. I've got one of them on the wall in our bedroom (a print, not a friend). But when I got married last year, we hired a professional photographer.

That's possibly a better analogy than you think.

not if you are a photographer in a thread about photography. i have no idea what any of that means. 😆

What relevance does it have whether it's essential or a luxury?

No, not essential or luxury - essential or optional.

The [i]only[/i] criteria on which to assess a photograph is personal enjoyment. If you like it, or you don't, it makes no difference. That is an internal criterion because you decide for yourself and are the only assessor.

Something like plumbing or building has external criteria - either the laws of the land or the laws of physics. You might think your new extension looks great, but it's not up to you whether or not it stays up - it's up to gravity. External criterion.

Something like plumbing or building has external criteria - either the laws of the land or the laws of physics. You might think your new extension looks great, but it's not up to you whether or not it stays up - it's up to gravity. External criterion.

Yep, but you/I/cougar/whoever still get to decide whether to just let the builder get on with building a generic flat roofed red brick extension (as drawn by someone who owns a ruler and a piece of paper. Or hire an architect (and maybe even a project manager) and get it done well.

Builder = mate with camera = something to fill a gap on the wall

Architect = photographer = something you want to look at on the wall

That said, for the kind of identikit family portraits we're actually taking about, the builder probably could do them on his cameraphone.

"A timely thread - had an email from a client this morning who is "very disappointed" that he's not getting a free set of full sized downloads for his £40 session fee.
Everything included is very clearly set out on the website and printed gift voucher. He bought the session himself ffs."

So this business model doesn't work for the photographer either.

"Why should it sadden you? "

Because there are genuinely talented people out there, not getting a look in, because curators/gallery owners are driven by increasingly commercial demands, and the actual quality of work viewable is falling, in my opinion. Why bother showing the work of someone who's spent loads travelling to get some amazing photographs, then thousands having them printed up to the best possible standards, for example, when you can get someone who's done a few Instagrammed snaps with an iPhone for less money? Well, a bit more complicated than that, but it's the end of the day and I can't be bothered going into it too much.

As for a profession; it's increasingly more difficult to make a living out of photography, precisely because of attitudes like yours. I fully accept that exactly the same was felt by those painting in oils, when photography emerged as a more accessible art form, and I accept that times change. But to devalue professional photography as 'unnecessary' is insulting to photographers. Maybe you'll think of that, the next time you do a Google image search.

I'll risk all and throw my hat into the ring

One moment of dawning for me was to realise that for a professional photographer shooting a Wedding, Portraits or event the real trick is not about getting the best shot. Its about getting it all done to a good standard. I shot a wedding this summer. I got some good shots. But where the pros I know would have done a better shop is in depth and breadth. Every group shot looking top notch, not just some etc.

I'll risk asking Clodhopper an opinion on one of my shots. It is massively "Photo-shopped". Is this the sort of thing that you are bemoaning? I'm sure you won't hold back telling me what is wrong with it you don't like it and that is fine

[url= https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8107/8503771535_bd17caec68_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8107/8503771535_bd17caec68_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/dXs41B ]Devon (2 of 2)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/ ]John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/ ]My photos in order of date added[/url]

[url= http://www.flickriver.com/photos/john_clinch/popular-interesting/ ]My photos ranked by flikr activity[/url]

"Is this the sort of thing that you are bemoaning?"

No. Because it looks like you had some sort of idea how you wanted the image to look, from when you took the picture, to the final version. I have absolutely no problem with using Photoshop in this way. I have images that have been extensively manipulated. But then, I used to do similar with film and printing.

No, it's shit like this:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

IE, 'let's take a mundane, not particularly good photo, and try to turn it into something amazing using an algorithm created by someone else, with no real understanding of how it works, then post it on Facebook and wait for sycophantic comments from our friends'.

And this:

[img] [/img]

And more criminally, hideous nastiness like this:

[img] [/img]

'Wow; we moved the sliders up to max, and you won't believe what happened next!'

Urrgh.

Oversaturated HDR shots are like black websites. Everyone's allowed to do [i]one[/i].

As for a profession; it's increasingly more difficult to make a living out of photography, precisely because of attitudes like yours.

Highly debatable that it's his attitude at fault. As far as I can see most 'professionals' just aren't that good (compared with the average amateur) and there is only a small market for excellence.

Basically supply exceeds demand.

Clodhopper

We agree

And yes one of the reasons I'm proud of that shot is the sky had been like that, over baggy point, almost all day. I then had the idea of what to do and it worked. As you say standing looking to final image

Your examples are just terrible...

A few months back I paid £750 for a 1:1 tutorial day with a professional landscape photographer. To some, that's an awful lot of money, and to some extent it was to me too. However, it's also much less than a decent lens, and over 16 hours amounted to not that much of an hourly rate for him after you take his costs into consideration. It also included a A1 archival print of my preferred image either from my portfolio or the day.

Relevance to the present discussion: if I'd done this six years ago, and waited longer to upgrade from my 450D to my 5D, that would have been a much better use of my money to improve my photography. That's the effect one long day of a top professional's time can have. Professionals appear to cost a lot because they are often worth it. Value and cost aren't synonyms. My camera cost me a lot of money, the tutorial was very good value given the improvement in my technique and editing finesse afterwards.

But to devalue professional photography as 'unnecessary' is insulting to photographers

Noooo nonono, you have me all wrong. I am very much in favour of photography as an art form practised by highly talented artists. But that is art, and is an entirely different thing from taking studio photos of a family of punters.

The problem there is that someone's business model is based on selling things to customers who aren't prepared to pay enough to keep the photographer in business. Maybe it's because the same customer can get snaps when out and about, maybe not.

Back in the day, such things were an important documentary part of family life - if it weren't for the studio portraits you'd have no photographic record. But now - not so much.

As far as I can see most 'professionals' just aren't that good (compared with the average amateur) and there is only a small market for excellence.

This.

An amateur has the time to get the perfect shot whereas a pro has to get a vast number of satisfactory shots in the minimum time and market them.

Completely different skills.

I have a friend who is a full time pro Photographer and one of his many small income streams is lecturing to camera clubs. He shows them his latest work rather than his career best and his audiences are openly critical of some of it. They're right, their best work is better because they can spend days on end getting the perfect shot. But his average work that he's capable of churning out very quickly day in day out is almost all of saleable quality and he has the contacts to sell enough of it to live. Different skill to spending 3 weeks on perfection.

Another point he often makes is at Weddings (he's not a wedding photographer, but he reckons you have to do a bit of everything) and at talks to Photography Clubs and Lessons he gives his kit is never the best compared to the best of the others. Amateurs can buy as much kit as they can afford of the best quality with a limitless budget. Every bit of kit he buys has to earn its living if he spent 20k on a lense that comes right off his bottom line which is out of the question.

I have another friend who installs kitchens. I visited his place once and the finish of his kitchen was outstanding. He noticed I was impressed and said "I wish I had time to do work of this standard for my customers."

Professional means you can make a living at something and for Photographers and Kitchen installers than means selling a vast amount of 'good enough' not a tiny amount of 'excellence'.

I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions but even so.

None of this is really relevant to my original point which is the business model of "Small price up front, then sell four or five shots for £XXX & delete the rest" strikes me as a sh1t business model and p1sses both sides off whereas "Pay £XXX and you get any good output that's produced and that doesn't need much post production" *might* lead to a higher income for the photographer and much happier customers. Someone higher up the thread made the point that the customer then has to take the risk if all the output is crap which might be the sticking point.

So this business model doesn't work for the photographer either.

Actually, it mostly does OOB. It gives an "in" to a range of excellent (and less excellent) photographers without a massive initial investment to scare off clients.

High Street companies like Venture *did* used to pretty much blackmail clients after sessions but the average client spend with low / no pressure sales is more than enough to keep me going (far fewer overheads, one man band, no expensive studio etc).

Still get the odd cheapskate but so long as everything is made competely clear before a session, it's rarely an issue.

Actually, it mostly does OOB. It gives an "in" to a range of excellent (and less excellent) photographers without a massive initial investment to scare off clients.

Yeah, in spite of my ranting I'm beginning to appreciate it does get people in. It's all very well for me to say that I would be far happier paying up-front for all the output, but the reality is we wouldn't even done the session if we hadn't been given it as a present and felt obliged to go. (But that's a big source of my annoyance: Someone has basically 'given' us 25pc of a £200 present and we're left to pay the rest. We've received a gift of "minus £150".)

At least I know what to give to people I hate in future. 😀

Outofbreath

I think professional photographers are obliged to keep the orginals for 25 years. So you can have a cooling off period before you buy them

This is an example of a family portrait done by someone I know. You may like the style, you may not, but I don't think many "amateurs" would have been able to make such an image.

[img] [/img]

Did a group one with the wifes family. All agrees to chip in. Her brothers kid was a funny looking lad, and when we got the photos her brother decided he didn't want any (of his own family!) leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall.
Been roped into a family holiday with them too. It's near Afan. Needless to say, I'm taking the bike.

I don't think many "amateurs" would have been able to make such an image.

They can now!

[quote=DrJ ]This is an example of a family portrait done by someone I know. You may like the style, you may not, but I don't think many "amateurs" would have been able to make such an image.

Maybe not - but I could produce a few shots I've taken which are decently exposed, focused and framed which a professional photographer wouldn't have been able to take because they weren't there. I know which I prefer having - but then I'm with molgrips on the issue of studio photos, so may not be the best person to judge. I suppose it depends what the reason for having photos is - I was struck by this comment on the previous page:

[quote=clodhopper ]What we are left with is 'imaging technicians', not 'photographers'. People who can produce an acceptable image that fulfils a brief, rather than being able to produce anything truly unique, or of significant artistic merit. Which is fine if all you need to do is illustrate an article, but not so great in terms of the evolution of photography as an art form.

I'm more interested in having memories than worrying about how arty the photo is.

Having said that I do "admire" that particular pic - I think I've got the right word there, I don't particularly like it, but I get the idea behind it. Oh, and I'm also betting that most "studio" photos aren't of that sort of quality.

Though clodhopper may have converted me with his examples - those truly are rubbish, even I can appreciate that, and if that's what you're dissing then I agree with you.

You're forgetting about Photoshop. Any Tom, Dick or Harriette can take a photo on their megapixel camera, throw the RAW file through Photoshop and bosh! They've got a photo that's comparable to a pro.

Most Tom, Dick or Harriettes won't own (rent) photoshop as it's an industry standard platform with the price to match. And if they do get a good pic out of it I would say it's more luck then judgement in most cases.

Good tools help an artist, they don't make an artist.

There are some crap pros too. And actually a good pro's strength will be working with people as much as technical skills. We work regularly alongside (with video) some decent photographers (and I mean signed to big brands) - their overwhelming skill is getting the best from their subjects and clients. That's where your amateur comes undone.

High street portraiture is hardly the benchmark really.

"their overwhelming skill is getting the best from their subjects and clients"

This.

I really think that people in this thread have a pretty poor understanding of what skills pros bring to the table. It's not technical, it's ideas and getting the subjects enthused.

Of course, an amateur doesn't have to bother with either of those since he's not confined to a studio and getting shots of people doing something interesting that they love covers both those bases in spades.

There are some crap pros too. And actually a good pro's strength will be working with people as much as technical skills. We work regularly alongside (with video) some decent photographers (and I mean signed to big brands) - their overwhelming skill is getting the best from their subjects and clients. That's where your amateur comes undone.

You're forgetting about Photoshop. Any Tom, Dick or Harriette can take a photo on their megapixel camera, throw the RAW file through Photoshop and bosh! They've got a photo that's comparable to a pro.

That's just rubbish.

That's just rubbish.

[quote=captainsasquatch ]Well that's knackered the landscape and sport photographer in one fell swoop.

Yeah, well all they need is the right kit and technical capability.

OP, as someone who's trying to set up their own photography business, I would never adopt the model of your photographer. Mine would be/is: 1-2hrs at £40-60, and I'll deliver around 4-8 full-res digital images to you. If you want them printed, that can be arranged for additional (£10 a pop). Something like that anyway.

And if you want to see what an amateur can do with a DSLR and Lightroom, try me at: http://kitcarruthersphotography.com/

Well that's knackered the landscape and sport photographer in one fell swoop

I thought we were discussing taking pictures of people?

Besides subjects can be landscapes, clearly.

With modern printing technology it isn't that hard to print your own photos from jpegs.

I printed out our own wedding photos. I used a Canon Pro-100 printer and quality papers, cost me about £50 of ink and £70 paper and £30 for a photo album rather than £650 that the professional printers wanted, so saved me about £500. The final quality was really very good I just needed to load in the paper colour profiles and do a couple of test prints to dial the settings in just right.

It is virtually impossible to replicate good studio shots without a studio, the lighting setup is more important than the camera or the lens.

I also tend to think that studio type photographers generally seem to go towards a high price/low hit rate business model where they might be better with a moderate price/good hit rate business model. Yes there is some effort in post processing too, but when correctly set-up and practised in the art it doesn't take long, again hardware/software advances have sped things up.

As a slight aside and with reference to the recent '11 things that annoy events organisers' article I think it is the same for sports photographers, I think they might make more money and have happier customers if they lowered the prices quite a bit and get a higher hit rate. I also think the photos tend to be a bit boring, I'd prefer riskier tracking shots which might be technically soft but make the subject look more athletically impressive.

e.g. my 1st attempt at sports photography
[img] [/img]

my 2nd attempt
[img] [/img]

Guess which one was running faster 😉

If I did a third attempt then I want to try the angle of the first one with the technique of the 2nd one.

With all due respect, those are 2 good arguments for paying pro sports photographers 🙂

For event photography in the UK bike scene I think a lot of the change and pricing has come from the work Seb did on Roots and Rain
https://www.rootsandrain.com/
It swaps a lot of the work out and means that the photo's get delivered to you rather than trawling for them and a higher throughput/lower price works out as well for the photographers. 4-6 quid for a pic sounds resonable to me.

I printed out our own wedding photos. I used a Canon Pro-100 printer and quality papers, cost me about £50 of ink and £70 paper and £30 for a photo album rather than £650 that the professional printers wanted, so saved me about £500. The final quality was really very good I just needed to load in the paper colour profiles and do a couple of test prints to dial the settings in just right.

and here comes the whole point, component pricing means the market changes. If the photographer is banking on selling the book/album to you after they may put the rate down for taking the pics - ie one subsidides the other. Having seen the time it takes to put together a book/album etc. it does cost time (which people seem to think comes free)
If all you want are the jpegs then expect to pay more in future and expect some photographers to refuse as they don't want somebody messing up thier work which is their reputation.

On sports... one of thise images is from the STW feature on Ramage
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
https://flic.kr/p/z1VRSE
(I think I might have been sat very close at that point 🙂 )
The pro one is just better, part of that is using the right lens and knowing a lot more about light etc. On top of that I reckon his will look much better as a full page than mine ever could.

I reckon when I tried my hand at DH Stuff I was getting about 1 in 10-15 descent shots that could be classed as a maybe buy if that was the only one, where as the pro's are shooting a much better ratio.

As photography is art, (yes, even journalists consider themselves artists) [img] [/img] and art is purely subjective. A discussion regarding what is good and what is not, is completely pointless. Unless you think you're going to change someone's mind? Personally, why bother. I know what art is and don't care if the rest of you disagree. 😉

OP, as someone who's trying to set up their own photography business, I would never adopt the model of your photographer. Mine would be/is: 1-2hrs at £40-60, and I'll deliver around 4-8 full-res digital images to you. If you want them printed, that can be arranged for additional (£10 a pop). Something like that anyway.

Hope that goes well for you. If you're interested in making cash out of photography there might be a few good tips here:

http://theactivephotographer.com/2015/10/episode-186-the-need-to-diversify/

art is purely subjective. A discussion regarding what is good and what is not, is completely pointless.

Maybe, but to say that the "sports" photos above are as "good" as, say, these:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/oct/03/bodybuilding-championship-in-nepal-in-pictures
makes no sense.

(sorry to pick on you twisty)

Maybe, but to say that the "sports" photos above are as "good" as, say, these:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/oct/03/bodybuilding-championship-in-nepal-in-pictures
makes no sense.

Since the debate has morphed into Pro Verses amateur I think we need to have a definition of 'Pro'.

Does it mean full time pro? Does it mean 'qualified'? Does it mean currently working?

I've sold three images, I'm deffo not a pro. I have a friend who did fine art photography at Uni and has taken some outstanding shots yet has never sold an image, is he an Amateur?

It's quite hard to pin down.

"I'd say 3 maybe 4 of those are quality pics, the rest are a bit pah! And I hope the Grauniad didn't pay too much for them."

...and we have no idea if they were taken by a pro or not.

I'd say 3 maybe 4 of those are quality pics, the rest are a bit pah! And I hope the Grauniad didn't pay too much for them.

They tell a story and convey the mood of the event very well, in addition to being a decent mixture of technical proficiency and abstract. At least they did to me.

Since the debate has morphed into Pro Verses amateur I think we need to have a definition of 'Pro'.

Does it mean full time pro? Does it mean 'qualified'? Does it mean currently working?

As an ex wedding photographer I have been following this thread for the last couple of days.
Its full of the same old arguments, give a decent camera to an armature and they will eventually capture a decent image. Send them to a wedding and you will have a very unhappy bride. Where the "pro" comes in is that they are able to capture consistently good images in ever changing conditions during a one off event. There are no second chances, you cannot ask the happy couple to redo their vows because you missed the "Kiss" shot.

As for cost, a typical wedding could be an 8 - 10 hour shoot, at least the same amount of post processing time, plus additional work on albums. Add to that three meetings, travel costs, equipment costs and insurance and it all adds up to a lot of money. Its almost impossible to make a living out of wedding photography alone. You need to be booked for 52 weekends a year just to make ends meat.

Must be nice to have your weekends back 🙄

You need to be booked for 52 weekends a year just to make ends meat.

Considered a career change as a sausage maker?

This sounds like the arguments I have when people send me files for a 36 page booklet - all done in Word, and at US Letter size - then moan when I have to tell them it all needs re-setting! 😀

For a wedding most people will need somebody who can deliver what people have come to expect. Certain standard groups and poses, all well lit and exposed despite the white dress, dark suit problems etc. A lot of money has been invested and there is no chance of a rerun, at least not with the same cast.

Family photos are a different matter. They are not expected - most people these days don't go to a professional to get photos of the wife and kids and the norm is for snapshots of whatever quality and aesthetics to grace the family "album".

But what is getting the OP's goat is the way a photographer sells a "session" without any photos - or maybe a small set is included - and then uses the "sweets at the checkout" technique to get the gift recipient to cough up more. Hence the "blackmail".

"The problem there is that someone's business model is based on selling things to customers who aren't prepared to pay enough to keep the photographer in business."

The problem is that the customer doesn't understand why the photographer needs to charge so much. Because of attitudes like yours, 'oh I'm not into that kind of thing so I don't value it', and the OP's 'anyone with a camera can do it'. IE, it's a profession that has been devalued by increased accessibility.

Some years ago, I was talking to a guy who was a professional graphic artist, who specialised in producing those amazing cutaway images, such as this:

[img] [/img]

Such images required tremendous skill and talent, and a master of art media. They were all done with pen and paint etc! Then along came computer software which enabled artists to do exactly the same, yet have far greater flexibility and scope, yet still required the same skill and talent, not to mention mastery of the software and technology. The guy had remortgaged his house, in order to pay for a very expensive computer system to enable him to do so, and even so, was looking at at least 2 or 3 years learning the new craft, to be able to continue doing his job. I have no idea how he got on, I do hope he succeeded.

Point I'm trying to make, is that there's a hell of a lot more to a craft trade, than simply operating equipment.

give a decent camera to an [b]armature[/b] and they will eventually [s]capture a decent image.[/s] generate electricity

🙂

There are no second chances, you cannot ask the happy couple to redo their vows because you missed the "Kiss" shot.

Apparently it's not unheard of to go back and re-stage some of the shots....

OK, how about this.

You pay several £xxx`s upfront for a shoot which includes a set of digital or printed files.
You go to the shoot, pay your money, and when the shots come back you dont like them/they are poor quality.

OR

You pay a minimal amount for a shoot, and then pay for the shots you want after you have seen them.

As long as the costs are agreed upfront i would rather go with option two.

The problem is that the customer doesn't understand why the photographer needs to charge so much. Because of attitudes like yours, 'oh I'm not into that kind of thing so I don't value it', and the OP's 'anyone with a camera can do it'. IE, it's a profession that has been devalued by increased accessibility.

I'm not saying there's no skill in it. I've acknowledged that. The issue is that it costs too much for the outcome, for most people, as we've discussed.

You can't make people think it's worth it. Well, you can, it's called advertising, but you have to do better than simply berating them 🙂

If a customer doens't want what you're selling, it's not THEIR fault, it's yours.

"But what is getting the OP's goat is the way a photographer sells a "session" without any photos - or maybe a small set is included - and then uses the "sweets at the checkout" technique to get the gift recipient to cough up more. Hence the "blackmail"."

In a nutshell.

"Hence the "blackmail"

But it's not 'blackmail' at all, this is the bit several people on this thread find quite insulting. It's the ignorance of how the photographer works.

If you get a tradesman round to do some work at you house, and they need to do some investigative work in order to assess what needs to be done, then you'd expect to pay them for that time. When they then quote you for the 'actual' work, you wouldn't consider it 'blackmail', would you? They've already come round to your house, and spent time they couldn't have elsewhere. Same with the photographer having people in the studio and taking the pictures. That might only take an hour or so, but it's an hour they can't spend doing something else to make money. So £50 for that isn't a great deal. And neither is the extra £150 for the prints. Because that's extra time spent in post production, printing etc. Then there's all the overheads of running a studio. And I doubt the average high st studio has every hour of the day booked up solid, all week long. Especially when less and less people value such work. So they have to make money when they can; it's possible they only get one or two photoshoot jobs a day. £400 a day before any expenses isn't much at all.

"OP, as someone who's trying to set up their own photography business, I would never adopt the model of your photographer. Mine would be/is: 1-2hrs at £40-60, and I'll deliver around 4-8 full-res digital images to you. If you want them printed, that can be arranged for additional (£10 a pop). Something like that anyway."

So, you don't need to make a living then?

"But it's not 'blackmail' at all"

I now understand the reasons for this pricing strategy and I can see it's a necessary evil. Maybe blackmail is too emotive a word and someone can suggest a better one. Nico summed it up IMHO.

outofbreath

"But what is getting the OP's goat is the way a photographer sells a "session" without any photos - or maybe a small set is included - and then uses the "sweets at the checkout" technique to get the gift recipient to cough up more. Hence the "blackmail"."

In a nutshell.

He wants to haggle with the photographer, before anything is done

I think what's required is up front negotiation before the emotive pics even exist

but this is obviously something the photographer wants to avoid. Imagine the mental drain and the waste of time, haggling over something that doesn't exist yet with someone who can't evisage what it is they are haggling over.

There are countless service industries where the provider will try to "add value" or upsell to the customer, or run a loss leader. The photographer is just doing the same.

Oh, you want your car washed? Ok. How about a quick wax and polish too while your here?

If a customer doens't want what you're selling, it's not THEIR fault, it's yours.

I don't think anyone is saying it's the customer's fault for not wanting what is offered for sale at the price quoted. That's obviously the customer's prerogative. My reading (could be wrong) is that the customer is nevertheless unreasonable to say that the work SHOULD be cheaper, because ... umm ... because.

"He wants to haggle with the photographer, before anything is done"

I didn't want anything done at all.

In the unlikely event that I did want studio Photos then that is exactly the approach I'd want - the same as if I was dealing with a commercial photographer.

The end result would be the photographer would make a bit more cash and offset the risk of none of the pics being good 'cos I'm so ugly and I'd leave happy.

I now fully understand the flaw in that model from the Photographer's POV.

I'm not really sure what there is to discuss now, I think we all understand what's happening.