Are my photos good enough to start charging for sessions?

[Derrel]

As gryph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days: any decent camera can in light like this, nail focus and get a proper exposure. But composition and framing cannot be automated.

A good way to evaluate composition is by viewing thumbnails or reduced-sized images. I took the liberty of taking the three portait images posted in this thread, and making reduced-sized versions, so that you can see the composition as a whole, at a glance, and free from the beautiful and pleasing details of the subjects. Many times we're mesmerized by great eyes, or a cute smile, or some other thing we see in a proiminent way in a full-sized image. But when we see a thumbnail of an image, the overall "gestalt" of the images becomes what we see.

For example:

in the Avaav shot, we see her cute gesture with hands to the face and a cute flower headband, but we can see that she's riding very,very low in the frame, and the orange and yellow background posts are distracting, and the overall backdrop is cluttered and the tilt becomes more prominent. She has a major flaw, a figure/ground attachment, where the dark, half-barrel flower planter attaches to the side of her head. In the full-sized image, these things tend to be less obvious.

In the second shot, beanbean,

, the boy's right hand looks a bit awkward, and the hand grasping the baseball cap looks claw-like, with the three fingers showing. He is however, in a dynamic pose, and he fills up most of the frame, and overall the image seems balanced, and has good eye movement through the frame. Backdrop a bit busy, but workable!

In the last portrait, this is the best example of how the SMALL-sized image allows us to look at the image, in its entirety, to evaluate it. Seen large, the amazing eyeballs, with the photographer's reflection clearly visible in the eyes, is nice!

But what we see here is an example of a portrait composition that just does not work well. The bright yellow OOF background element, right in an upper corner, and then the side of his head and his ear cropped off...the left side of the frame mostly empty, him slammed into the lower and right side of the frame. When seen large, the details engage the viewer...the eyes, the face, etc. But seen small...this is a good way to evaluate compositions--as "an entirety", or "as a whole".

You'll be able to evaluate and work on your posing, framing, and composition if you download your takes to the computer, and then open the folders, and make about 250-pixel tall images for your image previews, and look at them at that size. Deliberately eliminating the cute details, the engaging eyes, and so on, will allow you to "see" the images in a new way.

I think you will also find that if you view images at 250-pixel size, you can make fantastic CROPS more easily than if working on a large image, so in Lightroom, I prefer to make my crops on a SMALL-size image. For me, it just works better, compressing the image down to its total "gestalt", when making the crops or evaluating the framing.

 

[table1349]

As griph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days:

It's gryph, not griph. I'm not working on a movie set for a director with a lisp you know.

 

[Designer]

I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.

O.K., let's get you up to speed here. The style of photography that you like is called "informal portraiture".

The shot of the boy in his pink shirt (critique): Obviously, you framed way too tightly on the right side. I don't know if you intended this or not, but to me it's a mistake. That does not mean, however, that every subject needs to be centered in the frame. Quite the contrary in many cases. (learn how to balance your compositions) This side-crop does nobody any good, and his parents will wonder why, as in; Why couldn't you get his whole head in the shot?

Children have some special conditions that photographers forget about; they are smaller than adults, and their heads are proportionally larger than adult heads. Therefore; you need to GET DOWN to their level. Start practicing this by trying to get your camera down to about the level of their belly. If you have to lie on the ground to get that low, then do it. Getting the shot balanced top/bottom, left/right is a step in the right direction, and you can experiment/grow after you get the fundamentals down pat.

The three shots you have shown us are all fairly static, meaning the subjects are not adding movement. (The girl's hands are very nice, but she could still be doing more with her posture.) The two boys are doing nothing, and it is this "added something" that will make a huge difference in how your photography is perceived. When shooting, get your subjects engaged in conversation, have them move a certain way, hold something, gesture, look off frame and back again, talk, laugh, tell you a joke, or something to get them animated.

Try full-body shots, tight head shots, silhouettes, backlighting, high key, unusual angles, favorite activities, favorite toys, pets, siblings, adults, etc.

All of the above is worth keeping, so print it, memorize it, tape it into your gadget bag, sleep with it under your pillow, and put it on your refrigerator. Do all that and come back to tell us how people like your stuff then.

 

[chuasam]

I'm not saying her work is perfect. I'm saying that she's reached the level where she can start charging. I've seen far less qualified people holding really senior positions within the US government.

 

[Gary A.]

I gave this some thought, if you're comfortable charging for your work ... then go ahead. For me there is a certain level of ethics involved when money comes to play. As a former pro photog, to my eye your images are not pro level. But what the hell ... right. For me, when you start charging money it becomes, a matter of right and wrong, a matter of ethics.

If I wasn't sure whether my photos were worth cash-money ... I'd let my client know upfront that I am not too sure of my skills ... and in the beginning charge little to nothing. Or just charge by the image not the sitting. If it was I ... in the beginning and if I was unsure ... I shoot for free and they can pay me what they want ... let the client set the rate. Yes, this opens up opportunity for getting ripped off ... but in my book, it is better that I lose money than my client. Granted, you are not going for weddings, but there are so many horror stories of unskilled professional photogs screwing up a once in a lifetime event. Until you are fully confident that you can professionally shoot a once in a lifetime event ... don't put yourself in that position.

In summary, letting the client know upfront and/or charging very little and/or charging nothing at all (shoot to build a portfolio) and don't shoot events that can not be replicated, would go a long way to resolving ethical questions.

In my opinion, you are not a pro by any measure. That doesn't mean you do not have the talent to develop pro level skills. Just be upfront with the client as to what they are purchasing with their hard earned money. Show them a portfolio of large prints ... not internet/Facebook stuff. A print will bring out greater detail and more flaws than a computer image.

 

[cherylynne1]

Actually, Gary A's suggestion of charging by the image is brilliant. You tell them you're learning, take the photos, edit the best ones and present them to the client. If they like any of them, they can purchase that one for x amount, or you can offer a discount for them to purchase all of them. If they didn't turn out well, then the client only lost some time, which is much better than losing money and makes them more likely to try again with you later.

For me, I just offered photo shoots for free and eventually people started paying me anyway, to thank me for doing a good job. Even now that I set a fairly low price (I still feel I'm in the learning phase) most people have overpaid or tipped me. I guess that means I'm undercharging, but ethically I feel that what I'm charging is fair, even if the people I'm taking pictures of don't know any better.

I'll say this, though: about 80% of my clients used to go to another photographer in the area who charged moderate prices while she was learning. Her photos weren't terrible, but they weren't professional. Raccoon eyes, poor white balance, under or overexposed, missed focus, etc. People were so disappointed with the photos that they got that they refused to ever go to her again, even though she got better later on. You cannot recreate a first impression, especially where money is involved.

 

[Derrel]

As griph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days:

It's gryph, not griph. I'm not working on a movie set for a director with a lisp you know.

I made the correction as above. Got it to gryph...I should know that by now, and I apologize...I get Darrel, and Darrell, and Darryl--from Derrel, all the time.

Speaking of informal portraiture...I shoot that quite often. As far as consistency goes, it comes with practice, and with understanding of the fundamentals. And as to gauging work by the thumbnail, I actually practice what I preach. I "graded" the images off of these two years ago,as small thumbnails...Green means a B-list shot to me...here are fifteen frames in a row, SOOC, batch converted. I evaluated these based on the "gestalt" of the frame, and how I liked the composition/framing. Fifteen consecutive shots, and not a single Red-labelled image (A-List quality in all ways), but very consistently 'acceptable'.

 

[Gary A.]

PS- Good Luck!

 

[beccaf91]

I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.

O.K., let's get you up to speed here. The style of photography that you like is called "informal portraiture".

The shot of the boy in his pink shirt (critique): Obviously, you framed way too tightly on the right side. I don't know if you intended this or not, but to me it's a mistake. That does not mean, however, that every subject needs to be centered in the frame. Quite the contrary in many cases. (learn how to balance your compositions) This side-crop does nobody any good, and his parents will wonder why, as in; Why couldn't you get his whole head in the shot?

Children have some special conditions that photographers forget about; they are smaller than adults, and their heads are proportionally larger than adult heads. Therefore; you need to GET DOWN to their level. Start practicing this by trying to get your camera down to about the level of their belly. If you have to lie on the ground to get that low, then do it. Getting the shot balanced top/bottom, left/right is a step in the right direction, and you can experiment/grow after you get the fundamentals down pat.

The three shots you have shown us are all fairly static, meaning the subjects are not adding movement. (The girl's hands are very nice, but she could still be doing more with her posture.) The two boys are doing nothing, and it is this "added something" that will make a huge difference in how your photography is perceived. When shooting, get your subjects engaged in conversation, have them move a certain way, hold something, gesture, look off frame and back again, talk, laugh, tell you a joke, or something to get them animated.

Try full-body shots, tight head shots, silhouettes, backlighting, high key, unusual angles, favorite activities, favorite toys, pets, siblings, adults, etc.

All of the above is worth keeping, so print it, memorize it, tape it into your gadget bag, sleep with it under your pillow, and put it on your refrigerator. Do all that and come back to tell us how people like your stuff then.

Awesome! I didn't know there was a term for that style! And also, I didn't take that last photo. That was done by Kiersten Grant; whom I pay to do our family portraits. I think her work is amazing; but I was curious as to how you all would critique her work.

Try full-body shots, tight head shots, silhouettes, backlighting, high key, unusual angles, favorite activities, favorite toys, pets, siblings, adults, etc.

I like these suggestions for composition; great ideas! I like it!

 

[beccaf91]

I wish you didnt show the second set. I wont answer the OP question besides saying that.

You've received a lot of good advice above, if you want to start a business, no amount of internet wisdom will help you.

Make a plan. Then make another. Buy a few books related to your plan, get the gear, register the business, get insurance, get a lawyer, banker and accountant. Then if you still have it, the drive, do it.

If you have 0 business experience, get professional help, take a course or two or three on business.

Oh goodness. Well thanks for the "advice".

Your welcome.

Whats wrong with that post? .... Show lifestyle and portraits if thats what you want to work on.

Books and professional business advice will go a long way. If you don't like that " advice" then you are biund to fail. Also, creative live, if you havent heard of that it is the best online learning tool I've seen.

Once again, your welcome. Wether you chiose to go to Creative Live dot com or not is up to you. Accountant, lawyer, banker, all on you.

Cant take advice, well...

"Hey man nice shot" is all you'll get.

I have been looking at Creative Live a bit lately. So thank you for letting me know I'm at least looking in the right places. I just didn't feel that

I wish you didnt show the second set. I wont answer the OP question besides saying that.

was constructive per se; as you didn't tell me why. I'm am very accepting of criticism when you are also willing to help me grow from it. And if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make; I apologize. I genuinely thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[beccaf91]

I gave this some thought, if you're comfortable charging for your work ... then go ahead. For me there is a certain level of ethics involved when money comes to play. As a former pro photog, to my eye your images are not pro level. But what the hell ... right. For me, when you start charging money it becomes, a matter of right and wrong, a matter of ethics.

If I wasn't sure whether my photos were worth cash-money ... I'd let my client know upfront that I am not too sure of my skills ... and in the beginning charge little to nothing. Or just charge by the image not the sitting. If it was I ... in the beginning and if I was unsure ... I shoot for free and they can pay me what they want ... let the client set the rate. Yes, this opens up opportunity for getting ripped off ... but in my book, it is better that I lose money than my client. Granted, you are not going for weddings, but there are so many horror stories of unskilled prosfessional photogs screwing up a once in a lifetime event. Until you are fully confident that you can professionally shoot a once in a lifetime event ... don't put yourself in that position.

In summary, letting the client know upfront and/or charging very little and/or charging nothing at all (shoot to build a portfolio) and don't shoot events that can not be replicated, would go a long way to resolving ethical questions.

In my opinion, you are not a pro by any measure. That doesn't mean you do not have the talent to develop pro level skills. Just be upfront with the client as to what they are purchasing with their hard earned money. Show them a portfolio of large prints ... not internet/Facebook stuff. A print will bring out greater detail and more flaws than a computer image.

Oh wow!! That's a very good idea! As I stated before; I didn't feel it would be morally sound for me to charge people for something that in the end; they wouldn't be satisfied with. But a "pay for what you like" model does appeal to me; I'll at least be dipping my toe in the water. Thank you so much!

 

[beccaf91]

Actually, Gary A's suggestion of charging by the image is brilliant. You tell them you're learning, take the photos, edit the best ones and present them to the client. If they like any of them, they can purchase that one for x amount, or you can offer a discount for them to purchase all of them. If they didn't turn out well, then the client only lost some time, which is much better than losing money and makes them more likely to try again with you later.

For me, I just offered photo shoots for free and eventually people started paying me anyway, to thank me for doing a good job. Even now that I set a fairly low price (I still feel I'm in the learning phase) most people have overpaid or tipped me. I guess that means I'm undercharging, but ethically I feel that what I'm charging is fair, even if the people I'm taking pictures of don't know any better.

I'll say this, though: about 80% of my clients used to go to another photographer in the area who charged moderate prices while she was learning. Her photos weren't terrible, but they weren't professional. Raccoon eyes, poor white balance, under or overexposed, missed focus, etc. People were so disappointed with the photos that they got that they refused to ever go to her again, even though she got better later on. You cannot recreate a first impression, especially where money is involved.

My goal is to have repeat clients and form business relationships so I definitely don't want that. But yes, I really like Gary A's idea! I don't want to feel guilty afterwards

 

[beccaf91]

As griph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days:

It's gryph, not griph. I'm not working on a movie set for a director with a lisp you know.

I made the correction as above. Got it to gryph...I should know that by now, and I apologize...I get Darrel, and Darrell, and Darryl--from Derrel, all the time.

Speaking of informal portraiture...I shoot that quite often. As far as consistency goes, it comes with practice, and with understanding of the fundamentals. And as to gauging work by the thumbnail, I actually practice what I preach. I "graded" the images off of these two years ago,as small thumbnails...Green means a B-list shot to me...here are fifteen frames in a row, SOOC, batch converted. I evaluated these based on the "gestalt" of the frame, and how I liked the composition/framing. Fifteen consecutive shots, and not a single Red-labelled image (A-List quality in all ways), but very consistently 'acceptable'.

OH wow! These are fantastic! You can see how well these are composed!! This is the stuff I want to do! Was artificial light used in these?

 

[Designer]

I like these suggestions for composition; great ideas! I like it!

Aww... You're welcome!

I only write that much about once a year, so consider yourself fortunate that I did this time.

I think what I wrote might have been the condensed equivalent of one or two books on portraiture that you didn't have to read. You just caught me at a good time.

 

[beccaf91]

I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.

Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.

I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.

I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.

That is a telling statement to me. In addition to what has already been said, when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot. Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.

My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting. I think you have received some good advise. Learn the finer details of portrait photography. Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject. The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken. The devil is in the details.

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?