RANT - Photography Business

[Ilovemycam]

Enjoy the hobby, you'll live longer.

I'd tell anyone that asks there are easier ways to make $ than photography.

To me photography is sacred. I do not like mixing $ with it. Sure it would be nice if someone threw some money my way. But it would have to be more of a grant with no strings. I would not want to be shooting anything other than what I want to.

 

[Ilovemycam]

well. I think it comes to a point, when you have a potentially expensive hobby. That you either learn to live with what you have for equipment, win the lottery, realize you were born with a silver spoon you never knew about, or contemplate making some money on it to continue further into the field. The idea that everyone can drop 20k + into something without any return clearly isn't rational.

Perhaps some shouldn't really be considered pro. But this is free market capitalism. Perhaps in a communist society who could shoot a camera pro would be decided by others. In this one the free market does.

Yes, pix taking, travel and the rest can eat up lots of $. If you don't do it for $, you do it for love.

 

[Steve5D]

I would not want to be shooting anything other than what I want to.

But that certainly doesn't preclude you being paid for it.

I'm shooting Goo Goo Dolls, Daughtry and Plain White T's next week, and will be getting paid nicely for it. I freaking love concert photography...

 

[Browncoat]

I'm not saying its bad for them to establish, its just annoying me how many people are willing to charge, even though they are in most cases "in-experienced" and if they took the time to study the art. Maybe I wouldn't be so frustrated!

To the general public, photography is little more than just an app on their phone. Let that sink in for a little bit, then read on:

There is no such thing as a bad photographer, only a bad marketer. Togs who complain about amateurs all have the same thing in common...they're crappy salesmen. If you think your photos are so amazing that people should be lining up to hire you, you're wrong. If you think people will hire you over someone else because you're more experienced, you're also wrong.

 

[e.rose]

RANT BEWARE:
I'm sorry guys, but come on seriously. It seems like every man and his dog I know wants to become a "professional photographer" lately.

Thoughts??

Of course they do.

Counterpoint: Who cares? :greenpbl:

 

[e.rose]

I'm not saying its bad for them to establish, its just annoying me how many people are willing to charge, even though they are in most cases "in-experienced" and if they took the time to study the art. Maybe I wouldn't be so frustrated!

To the general public, photography is little more than just an app on their phone. Let that sink in for a little bit, then read on:

There is no such thing as a bad photographer, only a bad marketer. Togs who complain about amateurs all have the same thing in common...they're crappy salesmen. If you think your photos are so amazing that people should be lining up to hire you, you're wrong. If you think people will hire you over someone else because you're more experienced, you're also wrong.

I didn't read anything else in this thread, but I saw this post, because it was above mine.

"There is no such thing s a bad photographer" -- Totally, 100% disagree. There are BILLIONS of absolutely gut-wrenchingly horrible photographers.

HOWEVER... "Togs who complain about amateurs all have the same thing in common...they're crappy salesmen." Agreed.

"If you think people will hire you over someone else because you're more experienced, you're also wrong." Agreed.

Photo quality only plays a part. BUT... the part it plays, I feel is integral.

And here's why:

There are plenty of people who get hired over me, because they're "cheaper". Only difference is, I don't give a sh*t, because if they are gonna hire a photographer with lesser quality, because they're cheaper, they weren't my target client to begin with. The clients I *do* get are super chill and hire me because of the experience I give them and the quality of my images over the other choices they've seen. And I ain't cheap. But they heard from their friends what a great experience it was, and they've seen their friend's images, which is what causes them to contact me in the first place.

So you're right.

People who b*tch about this, are just jaded and probably poor salespeople. There are always going to be shoot and burners, your job is to figure out how to put value to what you're giving your clients in addition to handing them quality images, and then sell them those images when it's all said and done. :sillysmi:

 

[imagemaker46]

I'm not saying its bad for them to establish, its just annoying me how many people are willing to charge, even though they are in most cases "in-experienced" and if they took the time to study the art. Maybe I wouldn't be so frustrated!

To the general public, photography is little more than just an app on their phone. Let that sink in for a little bit, then read on:

There is no such thing as a bad photographer, only a bad marketer. Togs who complain about amateurs all have the same thing in common...they're crappy salesmen. If you think your photos are so amazing that people should be lining up to hire you, you're wrong. If you think people will hire you over someone else because you're more experienced, you're also wrong.

How long have you been working as a successful full time professional photographer?

 

[imagemaker46]

I'm hired based on my experience and skills and reputation. I've never been good at promoting myself, I produce images that sell and I'm hired by clients that appreciate the work I do. I turned work down last year because of work conflicts, and I still don't market myself. I have placed ads in two magazines targeting a very specific market and it didn't generate any work, some sales, but I wouldn't consider it successful, so I turned down the magazine when they came to me for another ad. ( I also didn't pay for the ads, but traded it off for a couple of pictures)

The world is filled with bad photographers, it is filled with bad amateurs and bad "professionals" I know average photographers that take every job that comes along, regardless of how much they are paid and they make a pretty good living, but all they do is work and work for fear of missing out on the next $15 shoot. They market and promote themselves all the time. Are they great successful photographers, by some standards people would consider them both, this is the world of mediocre being accepted.

 

[robbins.photo]

RANT BEWARE:
I'm sorry guys, but come on seriously. It seems like every man and his dog I know wants to become a "professional photographer" lately.

Thoughts??

Of course they do.

Counterpoint: Who cares? :greenpbl:

I suppose a "Jane, you ignorant ...." comment here would probably date me horribly.. lol

 

[robbins.photo]

"There is no such thing s a bad photographer" -- Totally, 100% disagree. There are BILLIONS of absolutely gut-wrenchingly horrible photographers.

Well, a billion and one - I bought a camera too you know.

There are plenty of people who get hired over me, because they're "cheaper". Only difference is, I don't give a sh*t, because if they are gonna hire a photographer with lesser quality, because they're cheaper, they weren't my target client to begin with. The clients I *do* get are super chill and hire me because of the experience I give them and the quality of my images over the other choices they've seen. And I ain't cheap. But they heard from their friends what a great experience it was, and they've seen their friend's images, which is what causes them to contact me in the first place.

So do you have like a test on your website to make sure they are super-chill before you take the gig? Lol

 

[AlanKlein]

Why worry or be frustrated by the people who are no good? Your competitors are those that are good.

I'm not saying its bad for them to establish, its just annoying me how many people are willing to charge, even though they are in most cases "in-experienced" and if they took the time to study the art. Maybe I wouldn't be so frustrated!

 

[robbins.photo]

Why worry or be frustrated by the people who are no good? Your competitors are those that are good.

I'm not saying its bad for them to establish, its just annoying me how many people are willing to charge, even though they are in most cases "in-experienced" and if they took the time to study the art. Maybe I wouldn't be so frustrated!

I think maybe the thought process here is that if the people who are only willing to pay $20 for a session couldn't get a session for $20 then they'd have to book a more expensive photographer. Personally I don't think that percentage is as high as most people believe it to be just from what I've seen. I think that a lot of the folks who only pay $20 for a photo session are the sort of people to whom if it were priced at $50, $100, $200, etc wouldn't buy one at all. Instead they'd just snap a few pictures themselves with their cell phones and call it a day.

Now granted I'm not a pro photographer, and have actively sought to avoid becoming one even on a part time basis (and will continue to do so, thank you) - but really I think that wasting time worrying about the fauxtographers out there is just that, a waste of time. My contention is that even if all of them were to dissapear in a plane flying out of Malaysia tommorow that it really wouldn't make a huge difference to the market as a whole, that the vast majority of the folks hiring them just wouldn't hire a pro at all if they didn't have a dirt cheap option available. You'd probably get a very small percentage of clients this way, but they would always opt for the cheapest option available and frankly it would never be enough to keep your doors open. Most likely the most you'd get out of these folks would be a couple of extra trips to McDonalds that year.

 

[Civchic]

Why worry or be frustrated by the people who are no good? Your competitors are those that are good.

I'm not saying its bad for them to establish, its just annoying me how many people are willing to charge, even though they are in most cases "in-experienced" and if they took the time to study the art. Maybe I wouldn't be so frustrated!

I think maybe the thought process here is that if the people who are only willing to pay $20 for a session couldn't get a session for $20 then they'd have to book a more expensive photographer. Personally I don't think that percentage is as high as most people believe it to be just from what I've seen. I think that a lot of the folks who only pay $20 for a photo session are the sort of people to whom if it were priced at $50, $100, $200, etc wouldn't buy one at all. Instead they'd just snap a few pictures themselves with their cell phones and call it a day.

Now granted I'm not a pro photographer, and have actively sought to avoid becoming one even on a part time basis (and will continue to do so, thank you) - but really I think that wasting time worrying about the fauxtographers out there is just that, a waste of time. My contention is that even if all of them were to dissapear in a plane flying out of Malaysia tommorow that it really wouldn't make a huge difference to the market as a whole, that the vast majority of the folks hiring them just wouldn't hire a pro at all if they didn't have a dirt cheap option available. You'd probably get a very small percentage of clients this way, but they would always opt for the cheapest option available and frankly it would never be enough to keep your doors open. Most likely the most you'd get out of these folks would be a couple of extra trips to McDonalds that year.

I agree with this 100%. Part of the reason there is such a proliferation of turrible turrible fauxtographers out there on social media, with "$50 for a 3-hour family photo shoot and 600 images on a CD!" deals is that there is a proliferation of people with $50 who would like something better than their blurry cellphone snaps with 1 out of 6 people looking at the camera, and that guy has red eye. They aren't going to print and frame. They're going to tag themselves on the prints on facebook and that's it.

But it's not like professional family photography is a new thing. Up until 10 years ago barely anyone got pro shoots done, though - the best you saw were every-five-years at the Sears studio green background posed shots ("Everyone squish in! Smile!"). Because that cost money. More than $50, once you got an 11x14 for the wall, with frame, and a couple of 8x10s for the grandmas, and some wallets. My family had exactly TWO professional photos done, each time that the church directory was published - the church hired a pro to come in and do the sittings for each family, and then you could buy prints.

So if there weren't a bunch of $50 fauxtographers, people like my family just would NOT be buying family photo sessions. It may be different for landscape and sports/journalism guys, I can see how the market would really impact that business, but for family and wedding photographers, GOOD photographers should still be getting the same quantity and quality of clients as they always have.

 

[Steve5D]

I think maybe the thought process here is that if the people who are only willing to pay $20 for a session couldn't get a session for $20 then they'd have to book a more expensive photographer. Personally I don't think that percentage is as high as most people believe it to be just from what I've seen. I think that a lot of the folks who only pay $20 for a photo session are the sort of people to whom if it were priced at $50, $100, $200, etc wouldn't buy one at all. Instead they'd just snap a few pictures themselves with their cell phones and call it a day.

Exactly.

I've shot one wedding in my life. It was for some co-workers. They didn't have a lot of money and were paying for the wedding themselves.

When they first asked me to shoot their wedding, I declined. I'm just not that guy. That's when I learned that they decided they'd have to be content with the photos from the disposable cameras left at each table at the reception.

I shot the wedding for $600.00.

Oftentimes, it's not that people don't want to pay higher prices, but more the simple reality that they can't...

 

[tirediron]

Exactly.

I've shot one wedding in my life. It was for some co-workers. They didn't have a lot of money and were paying for the wedding themselves.

When they first asked me to shoot their wedding, I declined. I'm just not that guy. That's when I learned that they decided they'd have to be content with the photos from the disposable cameras left at each table at the reception.

I shot the wedding for $600.00.

Oftentimes, it's not that people don't want to pay higher prices, but more the simple reality that they can't...

There's a big difference between shooting cheap and helping someone out! My prices are my prices, BUT... if there's someone I know who "needs" work, and can't afford my rates, I will do special discounts, as long as it is on a non-interference basis with regular paying work and I believe they're genuine (and can be sworn to secrecy).