And... we have further progression.

[PhotoWrangler]

The day I start getting paid on here, maybe I will lighten up and be nicer. Until then... not likely. I usually don't even bother commenting on the "pro" threads... they should already know how to be pro's... or they shouldn't be charging, and using the title! Much of the "pro" work I see looks like an 8 year old shot it...

So basically what you're saying is that you went out of your way to be an ass before 8am in the morning?

 

[AaronLLockhart]

So basically what you're saying is that you went out of your way to be an ass before 8am in the morning?

That's exactly what he said, he just doesn't realize that's what he said.

 

[cgipson1]

So basically what you're saying is that you went out of your way to be an ass before 8am in the morning?

That's exactly what he said, he just doesn't realize that's what he said.

Whatever....

 

[AaronLLockhart]

If you think of Wal-mart as professional, possibly it it you that needs to redefine what you consider acceptable....

Taking pride in something you do well, is not unusual.

If you just want to push out schlock and get paid for it, hey.. you and a million facebookers seem to have that same business plan! Good luck with it!

So if I hand my camera to a 6 year old.. and he takes a shot... and I pay him for that shot.. he is a professional, right? lol! sure! That explains the types of images so many new pro's produce!

Yes, technically your six year old performed a professional service.

I think you need to tell your ego to step away from the keyboard for a moment and let Charlie start talking.



The general consumer doesn't know the difference between a bad image and an ok image, and they don't know the difference between an ok image and a good image. They also don't know the difference between a good image and a great image.

The ones that do, are roughly about 1% of the marketshare... and I will gladly give you that 1%... I'll take the other 99%.

Who makes more money in the end? Yep, you're right, I do.

 

[Braineack]

Holy butthurt, Batman.

I would tell you that I think the subjects are poorly lit and underexposed, the cropping on the feet is poor, the blue blanket? by the girl is distracting as well as the thing on the guitar, but I'd be afraid you couldn't take the critique and would show up at my house and cry about it.

 

[cgipson1]

The general consumer doesn't know the difference between a bad image and an ok image, and they don't know the difference between an ok image and a good image. They also don't know the difference between a good image and a great image.

The ones that do, are roughly about 1% of the marketshare... and I will gladly give you that 1%... I'll take the other 99%.

Who makes more money in the end? Yep, you're right, I do.

If that 99% knew anything about photography.. then most "PRO's" would be out of business! lol! You can have them! That is one way to stay in business, I guess! Funny thing though... those that know nothing about photography are also the ones that don't pay much for it!

Did you see this?

Don't quit your day job.

The math is pretty basic.
There are 52 weeks in a year. Retail photography is somewhat seasonal, so figure you will only shoot about 46-48 weeks a year.
We'll use 48 weeks. You might get lucky and squeeze in a couple more weeks, but don't count on it and consider any extra you can squeeze in as gravy.

Most of the time devoted a successful retail photography business goes to business tasks. Doing the accounting, planning promotions, pay bills, tweaking your marketing plan, preparing your quarterly tax payments, making sure you're forwarding the state sales taxes, paying use tax, generating new customers, getting previous customers back again, networking with other businesses, on going education, attending workshops/industry conventions, etc.

So, it turns out that out of a 7 day week, and assuming you only take 1 day off a week you can only plan on 3 shooting days. The other 4 days go to editing, customer contact, delivering your product to the client, getting the oil changed in the car, grocery shopping, getting a hair cut, yada, yada, yada.

So - 48 weeks time 3 shooting days a week = 144 shooting days.
Lets figure 3 shoots per shooting day, but 2 per shooting day is more realistic, particularly if you don't have a studio.

Ok- so 3 shoot per shooting day time 144 shooting days = 432 shoots (sales) per year. Or put another way, you'll have to come up with 432 clients in a year.

If your gross income is 20% of your total revenue, and your gross salary is $30,000 a year - you need yearly revenue of $150,000 per year.
20% x 150,000 = $30,000
On average that is $12,500 per month, or average revenue of $2907 per week.

By the way. If your gross income is $30,000 a year about $7000 a year will go to state and federal income taxes, FICA, etc and you will need to live on about $23,000.

So, $150,000 a year divided by 432 shoots per year means you'll need an average sale per shoot of just about $350.

How much were you planning to charge, flat rate, for a 1 hour shoot that includes a CD of edited images?

Oh, customers take forever to choose from images that are online, because it's too easy to look at them that way. Proofing in person works much better.
From a 1 hour session I would not show the client more than 20 - 25 images. Other wise they have to many choices and again, take forever to decide.

Good luck with all that money you will make with your low end clients...

Quote from another thread:

Name me one other legitimate profession in which someone with no talent, no education, no experience, and no abilities can legally call themselves a "Professional".

Prostitution.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Holy butthurt, Batman.

I would tell you that I think the subjects are poorly lit and underexposed, the cropping on the feet is poor, the blue blanket? by the girl is distracting as well as the thing on the guitar, but I'd be afraid you couldn't take the critique and would show up at my house and cry about it.

Actually, no. Those are all good comments.

I don't mind actual critique. What I mind is someone sitting here speaking from his ass with an altered sense of reality, such as Mr. Charlie up there.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

The general consumer doesn't know the difference between a bad image and an ok image, and they don't know the difference between an ok image and a good image. They also don't know the difference between a good image and a great image.

The ones that do, are roughly about 1% of the marketshare... and I will gladly give you that 1%... I'll take the other 99%.

Who makes more money in the end? Yep, you're right, I do.

If that 99% knew anything about photography.. then most "PRO's" would be out of business! lol! You can have them! That is one way to stay in business, I guess! Funny thing though... those that know nothing about photography are also the ones that don't pay much for it!

Did you see this?

Don't quit your day job.

The math is pretty basic.
There are 52 weeks in a year. Retail photography is somewhat seasonal, so figure you will only shoot about 46-48 weeks a year.
We'll use 48 weeks. You might get lucky and squeeze in a couple more weeks, but don't count on it and consider any extra you can squeeze in as gravy.

Most of the time devoted a successful retail photography business goes to business tasks. Doing the accounting, planning promotions, pay bills, tweaking your marketing plan, preparing your quarterly tax payments, making sure you're forwarding the state sales taxes, paying use tax, generating new customers, getting previous customers back again, networking with other businesses, on going education, attending workshops/industry conventions, etc.

So, it turns out that out of a 7 day week, and assuming you only take 1 day off a week you can only plan on 3 shooting days. The other 4 days go to editing, customer contact, delivering your product to the client, getting the oil changed in the car, grocery shopping, getting a hair cut, yada, yada, yada.

So - 48 weeks time 3 shooting days a week = 144 shooting days.
Lets figure 3 shoots per shooting day, but 2 per shooting day is more realistic, particularly if you don't have a studio.

Ok- so 3 shoot per shooting day time 144 shooting days = 432 shoots (sales) per year. Or put another way, you'll have to come up with 432 clients in a year.

If your gross income is 20% of your total revenue, and your gross salary is $30,000 a year - you need yearly revenue of $150,000 per year.
20% x 150,000 = $30,000
On average that is $12,500 per month, or average revenue of $2907 per week.

By the way. If your gross income is $30,000 a year about $7000 a year will go to state and federal income taxes, FICA, etc and you will need to live on about $23,000.

So, $150,000 a year divided by 432 shoots per year means you'll need an average sale per shoot of just about $350.

How much were you planning to charge, flat rate, for a 1 hour shoot that includes a CD of edited images?

Oh, customers take forever to choose from images that are online, because it's too easy to look at them that way. Proofing in person works much better.
From a 1 hour session I would not show the client more than 20 - 25 images. Other wise they have to many choices and again, take forever to decide.

Good luck with all that money you will make with your low end clients...

Quote from another thread:

Name me one other legitimate profession in which someone with no talent, no education, no experience, and no abilities can legally call themselves a "Professional".

Prostitution.

I don't know what's more pathetic, that you are so delusional you cant see past yourself, or the fact that you use other people's opinions to back up your own?

Charlie, we have the same gear. I bought my gear through my photography business. I had 10% growth last year, and I expect another 3% on top of that this year. I'm doing just fine, buddy.

You can keep talking out of your ass. That ignore button seems to be working just fine for me.

 

[rexbobcat]

My two cents when it comes to the second image.

The flash is underexposed. The background is brighter than the couple.
If you're going to cut off limbs, get in close and cut them off equally on both sides so the photo is balanced.
Your WB is off. I suspect you were probably shooting on Daylight or around 5000K? The flash is, unfortunately, much bluer than sunlight so it will require a WB of around 6000-6500K, unless you add a gel.

The lighting itself is fine, but don't get so wrapped up in having such professional looking lighting that you disregard other important aspects.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

My two cents when it comes to the second image.

The flash is underexposed. The background is brighter than the couple.
If you're going to cut off limbs, get in close and cut them off equally on both sides so the photo is balanced.
Your WB is off. I suspect you were probably shooting on Daylight or around 5000K? The flash is, unfortunately, much bluer than sunlight so it will require a WB of around 6000-6500K, unless you add a gel.

The lighting itself is fine, but don't get so wrapped up in having such professional looking lighting that you disregard other important aspects.

Thank you for the feedback.

 

[DanOstergren]

I like the clarity of the second shot, but I feel that it's lacking contrast and the skin on your subjects is under exposed. Any other issues I have with the image have already been mentioned.

And holy damn, what a battle of the egos!

 

[Derrel]

mumbling to self..."Where is my Stanley steel tape measure? Oh...here it is!!!"

"Charlie, aim that stream this way, to be measured!!! Atta' boy Charlie, you are in the lead! 72 inches! Wow! Pretty good distance! No prostate trouble on your end, eh, Charlie!"

Oh, and what the heck *is* that thing on the end of the guitar...I know I have seen those things before...I assume they are used to restrict/modify overall string length and resulting tones? somethin' like that? Whatever that thing is, it REALLY distracts from the shot.

I think the shadows need to be lightened. The image is not in the right key. It's discordant.

 

[ffarl]

[Gets Popcorn]

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Oh, and what the heck *is* that thing on the end of the guitar...I know I have seen those things before...I assume they are used to restrict/modify overall string length and resulting tones? somethin' like that? Whatever that thing is, it REALLY distracts from the shot.

I think the shadows need to be lightened. The image is not in the right key. It's discordant.

Yes, it's a tool used to change the tune of the guitar to play on a certain end of the register. I agree, it's distracting to the average viewer, but a ton of musicians put it in that exact spot on the guitar. I think I'm just so used to seeing them that it doesn't bother me, and is not distracting to me personally.

Thank you for the feedback, also, Darrel!

 

[texkam]

A professional solution to the "crop my feet I don't want to see my shoes" issue would have been. "Great, no problem ..... click, click. Now, how 'bout slipping your shoes off for a few. ....click, click, click." A wise professional knows how to make the client feel comfortable while also directing them in order to get a better image. This problem solving often results in the client liking the latter images better.