How low can you go to make money?

[Vtec44]

but mention you do photography part time and suddenly it's an issue.

I don't think the issue is about being a "professional photographer". The issue is that that people who do it part time are often under charging, which then flood the market with low cost photographers and have an advantage over the high volume photography business model.

I personally don't care what people charge or call themselves. Aint nobody got time for that.

 

[bluewanders]

what ive always found odd is the stigma often placed on people by the photography community for having a "part time" photography business.
people dont seem to bat an eye at other part time cottage industries. selling baked goods on the weekend? sure. art pieces in your spare time? no problem.
building computers on the side? hey, everyone's got a friend that does that...
but mention you do photography part time and suddenly it's an issue. you can't possibly be a professional if photography doesn't pay for the house, the car, and all other major expenses.

oh no, someone works part time while their significant other works full time and pays more of the bills....guess they don't count.

as for defining "professional", just give up. thats a pointless and utterly meaningless debate.
i'll say one thing though, the tax office sure considered us "professional" four times a year, regardless of how much money we did or did not make, or what % of the bills were paid by photography work.


my point is...
if you are considering or already using photography as a part time/supplemental means of income....good for you!
absolutely no reason not to make money with something if you have the means to.
as long as you are properly set up to do so within state and county regulations.

The barrier of entry is low and the products of the work are entirely subjective. Those products are also being sold to a population that has things other than education on the subject to inform their preferences. Sounds like excellent conditions for elitism to rise. Especially when there's money involved to muddle hopes and dreams. People will either blame their success or lack thereof on other people, or themselves. That's when derogatory terms like "mom with a camera" start getting created and bandied about to put people in their place.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you hung out in communities of bakers or computer builders you might see some elitism there too... but you hang out in a photography community, so it will stand out prominently to you as a regular part of your experience.

 

[weepete]

I Dunno, I saw a photography "studio" in the town where I work offering a 1/2 hour familly session with an 8x10 print for £14.99

Seemed crazy low to me. Makes me glad I'm an engineer and not trying to make a living at this photography lark.

 

[dennybeall]

Someone said you have to show a profit to be able to deduct business losses. That is not exactly true. You can spend a couple of years working to build a business , not make a profit, and deduct the losses from your other income. After that you can deduct the business costs from any business gains and if an overall loss you show zero for the business. It's still a viable, real business, just not a profitable one by IRS standards....

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

All this talk about making profits and covering costs makes me happy I just do this because I enjoy what I experience and see while in the pursuit.

 

[jaomul]

There is also the type of photographer issue. Most enthusiast photographers know that there are a few types of photography and being good at one type does not always make one good at another.

A professional photographer did my cousins wedding very badly. The same guy is a paid photographer, but not a paid wedding photographer (except for jobs on the side). If you asked 95% of people I know, a photographer is a photographer. They would probably think a great landscape guy/girl would automatically be good at events.

But then again, we have professional cameras and professional lenses, often high cost units. Stands to reason the term can be thrown about for a photographer irrelevant of said persons status

 

[fmw]

I have a slight rant.

I don't know how many articles I have read that say "you can't be a photographer until your photography has made you money" - "if you don't, you're just another guy with a camera". I find that complete and utter BS.

So basically, you can't be a photographer if you just love the art form? You're just another guy with a camera.

I completely understand that people need to make money, especially to provide for their family. I have no problems with that, but why not put some heart and soul into it, you know? Instead of just pocketing the money. For example, the two photographers my cousin hired for their wedding were probably some of the worst wedding photos I have seen. They ended up using a lot of my photos haha because I wasn't trying to deceive them to just collect a paycheck.

In my personal opinion, I believe your work should stand for it self. I don't market myself at all, I'm not that good at photography. Sure, I've sold some prints, had photos on TV and in magazines. I've won some photo contests but that by NO means makes me a professional. I'll NEVER market myself as a professional photographer even I was a famous wedding photographer which I'll never be, because weddings make me puke. Haha.

Amen to that. I should add that being a professional photographer doesn't necessarily mean good photographer. Think of those portrait operations in a mall. Change the subject, fire the shutter. I think there are probably as many good photographers in the serious amateur ranks per capita than there are in the professional ranks. I've made money doing horse portraits and pictures of factory floors that any serious amateur could do. I've seen professional photographer web sites with images that turn my stomach. I'm not fond of weddings either.

 

[kretterath]

Any time you have any sort of money invested into a photography business you have to charge according to what your output and experience is. A beginner building a portfolio wouldn't be on the same pay scale as someone who has been shooting for money for 10 years.

 

[runnah]

I plumb the depths of depravity on a semi-regular basis.

 

[TheLibrarian]

Not much talk of actual numbers. Now I'm not a paid photographer but run some numbers. Paid could mean 20k a yr but to walk away from a decent job I'd need 50k salary to me after most expenses that's a good 960 say 1k a week. That's going to be rough. I see 600$ baby pics but not convinced even a good photographer could get that twice a week. Need corporate steady work and or weddings in season. pause for a sec.

 

[TheLibrarian]

One main issue is how much work you can expect to get and how much time would you spend photographing vs advertising and businessing.

Maybe turn that on it's head and ask how many people you can support if you shot 40hrs a week. $100 an hour seems reasonable many things cost more than that weddings etc. $4,000 a week among 4 people... alright many other expenses too especially bringing in more people.

What 4 do we need. Full time ad person, business and retoucher. Toss out the retoucher and pay the taxes and insurance. And at 50k we expect professionalish people. Advertising and business folk make more.

10k in startup gear. Full frame cam 2-3 good lenses. Stands, lights etc. 4-5k month NYC studio. 1k anywhere else or 25o wk. Pay off equipment or make back in 5 years. That's 2k year eq.

52+2+12+5(slop)= 71 year alone + 104(help)= 175

71/52 = 1,3--/ 40 hrs= 34 hr shooting 40 hrs alone.

175/52= 3.36-/ 40hrs= 84 hr shooting 40 hrs 2 pros in the office booking up 40 hrs.