Losing business to amateurs

[bribrius]

Is she single ???

the o.p 's stand in photog or my wife? If you mean my wife then no, but I wouldn't deny the idea of selling her hasn't crossed my mind...

Ugh. Please don't try to make a case for the value of a photograph as a series of one line platitudes. I haven't the strength to try to assemble them into an argument.

If someone really wants to take a stab at the question, actually think about it for a few minutes and try to write something complete. At least, if you want me to read it.

If you don't, of course, carry on.

what are you talking about?

 

[BillM]

You are free to read or not read any threads you like.

 

[photoguy99]

Post #199 brib.

BillM my bad. I thought you actually might want to try to answer my question but I see you're not interested.

 

[BillM]

But I did answer your question. As a matter of fact you gave your permission to carry on after reading it.

 

[astroNikon]

Some posters in this thread seem to be taking it as a given that photographs and photography have value, and fairly high value at that.

Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining why? Where does this value come from?

When I buy a car I understand that steel costs money. I understand that the labor of assembling cars is not much fun, and that therefore I need to pay pretty well for that. I understand that auto design is actually very complex and difficult and I have to pay for that. Raw materials, completed subassemblies, and finished cars have to be transported around, which costs labor and fuel.

What are the components of photography and photographs that justify a high price? Or any price above $0 for that matter?

Basic Supply & Demand.

If someone will pay $$ for a photograph then you can make money.
If someone else charges less for a similar photograph and their sells and your doesn't, then their price was correct.
If someone charges nothing, or next to nothing for their work and your stuff doesn't sell, then they are priced right for the buyer..

The value of anything is in the hands of the person(s) purchasing it. Whether a car, photograph etc. With cars ,though, people just can't go to BestBuy and buy a "Make your car at home" kit for under $400 that doesn't weigh half a ton and meet all the federal safety regulations.

Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.
If no one pays for it, then the price is too high.
If someone sells something similar for less money, then they are being competitive.
Business is generally not a monopoly, you have to compete against everyone out there. And sometimes, it's against someone that bought stuff from BestBuy (or of course anywhere else).

 

[CameraClicker]

So, if you want a photo, you have 3 choices?
Take it yourself.
Pay someone to take it.
Find someone that will take it, and give it to you for free.

If you take it yourself, you spend your time, and need a camera.
If you pay someone, it costs what you pay them.
If you find someone to give it to you for free, well that might be the cheapest method.

 

[photoguy99]

You did not answer my question, Bill. You made a couple of remarks which speak to cost, perhaps. Not value. I thought perhaps you would be willing to dig in a little further and explain something about value. But evidently not.

If I use $10,000 of woodworking equipment and 2000 hours of labor to make an all-wooden wristwatch that is 3 feet across and weighs 200 pounds, my cost is high. The value of the finished object is arguably not very high, though. Whether you are a capitalist, a Marxist, or something else, the value is just not there.

Business is half about making your costs lower than the value of the produced goods. The other half is selling the produced goods for their value or more.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, astroNikon. There's more to life than capitalism, but it's a reasonable world view that seems to work for a lot of people.

I'd like to see a similar post explaining why a photo DOES have value, though. We've got a fair bit on why they don't, already in hand.

 

[BillM]

A 4th choice for your list

See a photo that someone has already taken and you ask them for it. If they refuse then you could offer to pay for it. Or you could always "internet borrow" it.

But none of this really has much to do with the initial topic. Now we are into the worth of an object. In this case the object is a photograph. And the bottom line is that if someone wants an object then that person values this particular object to some degree. Now are they willing to put a monetary value to that object. It's late and I don't have a business degree so I'm going to bed. Feel free to carry on without me

 

[407370]

I am having a hard time following some of the logic here.

According to some people the guy lost the gig through his own fault to someone offering to do the same job for free. Thats ridiculous. It like saying the millions who lost their jobs in the recession (I was one of them) did not try hard enough to keep the jobs.

Photography should always be paid for. Thats ridiculous. I take pics for people and never charge for the digital files. I am not doing a pro out of work as the people would never pay for a photographer anyway.

The hard truth is that photography is a dwindling market place. Some people will hang on in niche corners of the market and that will become less and less prevalent over time as the difference between hobbyists like me and professional level product is bridged by technology.

Whether you like it or not the impact of a picture in a magazine is now more to do with post processing that getting it right in camera. 3D imaging has eaten up a huge chunk of high end advertising work and will continue to encroach on the volume of work available to photographers.

Photographers are creative people and professionals should be embracing the new technology. Dont get stuck in a single medium to express your creativity because it will lead to more conversations like " Losing business to amateurs"

 

[snerd]

...... I am not doing a pro out of work as the people would never pay for a photographer anyway........

I've heard that same argument from people that pirate software............. they were never going to pay for it anyway, so they're not really stealing. Not disagreeing with your overall point, though.

 

[407370]

I've heard that same argument from people that pirate software............. they were never going to pay for it anyway, so they're not really stealing. Not disagreeing with your overall point, though.

Software pirates are stealing but the industry did not lose money as they would not buy it anyway. The difference is that the people I give digital files to are mostly friends or people I have shared an experience with and my pictures had zero commercial value to begin with.

 

[Gary A.]

Some posters in this thread seem to be taking it as a given that photographs and photography have value, and fairly high value at that.

Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining why? Where does this value come from?

When I buy a car I understand that steel costs money. I understand that the labor of assembling cars is not much fun, and that therefore I need to pay pretty well for that. I understand that auto design is actually very complex and difficult and I have to pay for that. Raw materials, completed subassemblies, and finished cars have to be transported around, which costs labor and fuel.

What are the components of photography and photographs that justify a high price? Or any price above $0 for that matter?

Personal experience. I've been paid a decent weekly salary for my photographic services.

 

[tecboy]

 

[CameraClicker]

You did not answer my question, Bill. You made a couple of remarks which speak to cost, perhaps. Not value. I thought perhaps you would be willing to dig in a little further and explain something about value. But evidently not.

If I use $10,000 of woodworking equipment and 2000 hours of labor to make an all-wooden wristwatch that is 3 feet across and weighs 200 pounds, my cost is high. The value of the finished object is arguably not very high, though. Whether you are a capitalist, a Marxist, or something else, the value is just not there.

Business is half about making your costs lower than the value of the produced goods. The other half is selling the produced goods for their value or more.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, astroNikon. There's more to life than capitalism, but it's a reasonable world view that seems to work for a lot of people.

I'd like to see a similar post explaining why a photo DOES have value, though. We've got a fair bit on why they don't, already in hand.

Does a photo have value? How high is up? Value to whom?

If you wanted a photo, and took it, it cost time and skill, so something like this has some value. Perhaps not to others, or at least not enough that others would pay for it, and not enough to even bother with paper and ink.

Then, there is a photo like this which doesn't look like much. It took a macro lens and about as much skill as the previous photo. Along with another earlier photo, it convinced a doctor to refer to a specialist, who did surgery. Cancer was interrupted just before the need for Chemotherapy. So, a life was extended and some suffering was avoided. This was definitely worth the paper and ink to print.

Then, there is a photo like this Nick Ut: Photographer Talks Kim Phuc 'Napalm Girl' Photo 42 Years Later : People.com which changed the course of a war, and saved the life of the little girl -- because the photographer was there to take photos and took time to help and exercise influence.

So not all photos are created equal. Some are worth amusement, some are worth memories, some save a life, some save many lives, some incriminate, some kill, some trigger memories or pass likenesses on to future generations. In BC, they just raised a statue because of a photo of a little boy running to his father who was going off to war.

What is the value of a photo? I have no idea! What kind of value? What photo? Value to whom?

 

[minicoop1985]

I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.