New city, new gradute, starting to freelance

[Steve5D]

If you're going to charge, you need to be charging more than $20.00 for a 30 minute session.

By and large, client's are simply not going to care about the costs you incur doing business. They just won't. What they want to know is what they're getting for the money they give you.

Period.

There's a concept known as "perceived value". You want the "perceived value" of your work to be higher than what you're charging, but not so disproportionate that it borders on the silly. $20.00 is too little for anything.

If I'm going to do a simple portrait session, I'll charge $125.00 an hour with a two hour minimum. If a client doesn't want to spend that much time, I'll offer, and almost always have universally accepted, a one hour session for $175.00. That wasy, I'm making $50.00 more than my hourly rate, but the client perceives that I'm making concessions due to the fact that he's getting a $75.00 break because I'm not adhering to my "minimum".

The two hour minimum is a made up number. It doesn't really mean anything...

 

[Steve5D]

Perhaps, on a purely monetary basis, but IF he were working for free, then he it would be MUCH easier to start charging more normal prices in the future since a price-point hasn't been established, working for free may negate, at least to some degree the need for insurance, licensing, etc...

Good points.

I hate when you do that...

 

[tirediron]

Perhaps, on a purely monetary basis, but IF he were working for free, then he it would be MUCH easier to start charging more normal prices in the future since a price-point hasn't been established, working for free may negate, at least to some degree the need for insurance, licensing, etc...

Good points.

I hate when you do that...

:mrgreen:

 

[xzyragon]

Why not do cheap sessions, and offer another free or cheaper photo shoot to anyone dissatisfied with the photos you took? If you're in it for the experience and not the money at least

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

I honestly don't think your ready to make a "career" out of it just yet. I would strongly suggest you finding a full time job at Starbucks or similar and continue working on your skill sets and go from there.

But if you insist of jumping in feet first I wish you the best of luck and hope you have a trust fund to fall back on.

With a degree in communications I think she could probably do just a bit better than a job at Starbucks. Pretty sure Dairy Queen is hiring. Free blizzards. Just saying.

Lol

Seriously though, to the OP - it sounded like your intent was to do this part time so I'm assuming you probably already have a full time gig. Me I am not a pro, either part or full time. I have a full time job that pays the bills and for me photography is a hobby, one I would never want to turn into a part time job. But if your going to be doing part time then my best recommendation would be to sit down and seriously think about a business and marketing plan.

 

[kpfeister]

Hi, thanks for all of the advice. It is for something on the side - I've been photographing for years and wanted to extend it since I don't have any more obligations to do work for a paper anymore. Something very casual. I'll take all of this into mind.

 

[Designer]

Kelly; I looked at your portfolio, and did not notice any shots that included lighting. Also frankly, some should not be included. I recommend that you keep on shooting for free. You can get tons of experience and people will not mind if they are not the best shots.

 

[kpfeister]

Sure, which ones did you dislike?