What should My rates be?

[GraphicsGeek]

Thanks that works. Here are what I believe to be my top 3:

Is that a person's hand with a clamp on it?

 

[Sirashley]

Racefan--- I am going to offer you a tremendous piece of advice... This was the same advice that was given to me when I contemplated doing photography for a wage... Let me preface this by saying that Safari has been buggy since the facebook update, and I can't view your photos at full size, so I can't really critique them... Of the three that you posted, the first one is a decent shot, and I could see it as an editorial image. The last two images really aren't at the level of being paid for...with that said...

Ready... Here it comes...

Go to shutterstock.com or Dreamstime.com These are sites for selling stock photography. You upload your photos and can make money as people download them to use commercially. Here is the one catch... The photos have to be flawless, well composed, not overdone, no noise, extremely sharp, and well... like I said, flawless... When 7 out of the 10 photos you submit there get accepted, then you will be ready to start charging for your services... Because that is the quality of work that one would expect when paying for photographs...

Now with that said, I have seen some work from other photographers who do charge ( and they are not cheap) and I thought it was flat out garbage and couldn't believe the client actually paid for them... Remember, its all relative, and at the end of the day, its a matter of whether your client is happy.

Here is are two examples of shots that I have had downloaded from stock sites

Now, of the 20 shots I've uploaded... I've had 4 accepted, and that includes the two above... The two above are the only ones that people have downloaded...

So anyway, the point of this was, I think for you, stock sites may be a great to test the waters. I too have had offers from people to do photography of their pets and children. I did some of a friends dog, and they wanted to pay me for this pic

I was, "Don't be ridiculous, plus, I hate selective de-sats, but they loved it and were willing to pay for it... I just gave it to them...

Anyway, I digress, again...LOL... So... perhaps try your luck at Stocksites, this should give you an idea of the level that you need to be... Lastly, this summer I may apprentice with some wedding photographers who I know... I don't get paid of course, but the amount of knowledge I will learn while being in the field and actually getting experience will far outweigh the money aspect. That may be a good idea for you too... Good luck and keep us posted...

 

[Formatted]

I hate selective de-sats,

That would have been a pretty nice shot if you had the feet in! But the first 2 are nice...

 

[racefan24]

GraphicsGeek, That is a photo of my buddy working on his mini sprint car, he lost both of his legs, his arm and arts of the remaining fingers. That is a claw that he uses every day. Personally I am pretty much looking to be a racing photographer and I here you guys that my composition needs to be improved and that is one of my big goals this year is to do that. As far as stock sites, most stock sites I have seen with racing images on them, everything is removed. Sponsers, driver name, everything is taken off and I personally think doing that to a racing image just isn't right (but thats just me). Thanks you guys for your input!

 

[Overread]

Stock site are a bit of a trap - if you only use them lightly you generally won't make much if any money out of them - even if you sell quite a few images. You have to sell a lot through stock to make the money because each image only sells for a tiny amount. This means that to make a proper earning off a stock site you have to put a lot up for sale and that means a lot of professional grade work that will sell (and not just be good) - contributing to the stock site really is a professional level job with all the hours that entails. Some have made it lucky by having a few or just one iconic image that sells like wildfire but they are very rare exceptions.

There are some stock sites that give more for your money (there are normally the more well established stock sites) however as per the higher price the image quality must be flawless.

 

[bgaideski]

I have had a similar problem recently. I do not know what to charge for my work either. I spoke with a professional photographer, one whom I have quite a bit of respect for, and he insists that until I consider myself a pro, that I charge nothing. He says to treat it like a learning opportunity. He also mentioned that once I shoot about 80 - 90% 'good' shots, then I will be ready to charge.

I agree, and disagree with him. My main dilemma is that I really prefer to take pictures of nature. Macro shots are one of my favs. What tends to happen is my friends and in some cases acquaintances will regularly ask me to take pictures of their newborn, or to take family pictures for christmas, or to shoot their wedding. The problem is I don't even really like to take those pictures. I do it to get some experience because I feel like it will help me in the long run. But it really is a big pain in the ***. Especially weddings because those are an ungodly amount of work/effort.

Recently my Ex-Girlfriends sister asked me to shoot her wedding reception. I really didnt want to, and knew the only reason she was asking me was because she didn't want to get charged a huge (to her, ungodly) amount of money. No offense to you pros out there, because i know the work and time that goes into it, but your high prices are exactly the reason why people like racefan24 and I get people that ask us to take pictures for them. They want pictures taken on a nice camera, but can't afford to pay a pro.

racefan24, i've noticed the same thing you have. some people on the internets are rude. You really just have to get used to it.

Anyone of your friends will look at your pictures and say there amazing, nearly half of the people on this forum will think they are ****. It's all based on who you surround yourself with. A lot of these people are pros and are used to taking/seeing amazing photographs. Most of your friends can't determine a good photo from a great one. I'm not trying to give you crap, because my friends are the same way, but you should always keep that in mind.


As for your price here is what I have decided to do. Well a couple of options I have played with anyway.
1.) If someone looks at your work, likes your work, and wants you to work for them. I would charge them an hourly wage, or a basic 'shooting fee'.
2.) If you feel under confident about your work, and you think the customer could be disappointed, you could try shooting it for free, aka experience shooting. Then if they end up liking your work, charge them afterwords. If they offer you too little, or don't want to pay what you think is reasonable. You don't have to sell them your photos.
3.) Until you are more experienced you could shoot for free, and then just charge for the prints. Yes, you could lose money and waste time doing this. However, you still have the prints, and can use them in your portfolio.

I hope my non-pro advice helps you along the way.

I'm charging $50 - $100 for that wedding im shooting in march. The money basically cost the gas to get there, with a little extra added. In the end she will be getting a disk with all the images I took, with no PP. If she wants me to do extra work on them (assuming im not feeling generous), she can pay extra for that.

One thing you do want to make sure doesn't happen... Everyone who knows you now knows you have a nice camera ... Don't get sucked into doing everything for them for free. Thats my biggest trouble. Telling people no. How do you say someone you have known your whole life that you don't have time to throw away a whole Saturday so that they can get their photos and not have to pay for them? If you find that out let me know.

 

[bgaideski]

To sum it up...

Just charge what you feel your pictures are worth. People might pay it, people might not.

Most professional photographers won't agree with this point. Its business. If a pro charges $1000 for a shoot, and an amateur only wants $150, you can see how the amateur could be cutting into the pros profits. When it comes down to it, I just feel that not everyone wants the best picture in the world, sometimes people will sacrifice quality to save money.

But in the words of my professional photographer friend... 'People who aren't pros and are charging for their work are killing the industry'.... It's up to you weather you think that is true or not.

 

[DennyCrane]

And you get what you pay for.

 

[erichards]

On the issue of what to charge... figure out how many prints you are going to have to make (did you offer proofs??) and double that...that is roughly what you should charge for your first time. Since you are not professional, they have (I'm assuming) seen your work and liked it enough to hire you, your gear you use should then be a somewhat non-issue (as that is what you've shot with before). Then if they decide to purchase prints past that double the price of processing and you'll get paid for your time and the prints. When you decide to go all out professional check what others are charging and go from there.

 

[Sirashley]

I hate selective de-sats,

That would have been a pretty nice shot if you had the feet in! But the first 2 are nice...

You know, that does bring up an interesting point... I think we as photographers need to realize that the people we are shooting these photos for, are not photographers... and to them, the emotional attachment to the photo is far more important than the technical aspects...

I make this point because the fact that the dogs paws are cut off in that shot always bothered me... To her owners, they could care less... You see, that is her favorite toy, and she always flops up on the back of the couch to show it off... That moment and her expression were what was important to them... They could care less about her paws being cut off... So in that respect, I captured what they wanted out of a photograph... Perhaps that is truly what is important when you are being payed, simply capturing the moment that the customer wants... I mean, at the end of the day, its their money, and if they are happy with the shots, isn't that what's really important??? Ultimately, shouldn't that be how we measure one's success as a paid photographer, by how well they meet their customers needs???

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. I bought my first SLR camera almost two years ago. My first couple of years in classes I was using just a point and shoot camera and a canon k2 and only used automatic functions because I didn't know any better.

Just so I'm clear. You got through 2 years of classes without learning how to use a manual camera? And you used a p&s in photography classes? Something doesn't add up.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Hey guys,

I have been studying photography for 4 years, finishing up my Junior Year as a photography major at Columbia College Chicago. I have taken about 16 classes on photography which includes Film, Digital, and Studio classes. Also, I am starting my 3rd season as a freelance Auto racing photographer.

So I'm going to answer my own question. You claim to have been studying photography for 4 years, yet for the first 2 years of study you didn't know how to use a manual camera. This seems a MAJOR problem to me on several levels.

1. I would ask for my money back from the school. If you managed to get through film and digital photography classes without knowing how to operate your camera then your school has done you a major disservice. I thought these courses required cameras capable of manual operation. Again... something doesn't add up.

2. I question your dedication to photography. Most of us learned how to use our cameras from the internet or a book and then went out to practice. You claim to be studying photography yet you couldn't make the effort to do at least this?

If I were a potential client and you told me this I would dismiss you immediately. I took the time to learn how to use my camera and I didn't waste 2 years of school to do it. I don't believe you care about your photography. Whether or not that may be true, that's what your story tells me and perception is everything.

Sorry, but if all this is true then it is pretty sad. Your school ripped you off and you don't care enough about what you're doing to invest the time to learn the fundamentals of the craft.

But I'm still not buying it.

 

[Overread]

Sirashley - you raise and excelent point about photography and the difference between commercial work and the ravings of internet amateurs (). It's no valid excuse to not shoot well for a client nor is it something that a lesser photographer can fall back on in defence, but it is a sign and a reminder that we as amateurs often demand perfection in the works of others (especailly when they have the cheek to charge for it).

Also I would like to remind some that (as far as I can work out in this thread) the photographer in question is not a wedding photographer. He is not building a site and charging clients money before they see the results of his efforts, he is shooting trackside work and then approaching the drivers and patrons for sales. He might also be on contract or agreement to take such shots at the tracks (and for sales I would expect that he is at least under licence to sell the images) but that would still have to be done based on his track record (if you will) and the images he has already produced.

I do have to say (honestly) that I think there is some very strong bashing going on here when the OP is not displaying a horrific level of photography. Ok shots and not world class I will admit and there is certainly some room to improve. He would do himself a great service if he were to be more ruthless in forming his portfolio as there is a lot of range in what he is showing - the meerkat shot for example is noticably soft and blurred (dispite being cute) whilst on the second page he displays a far sharper and more impressive shot of an owl - still there is room to improve of course.

I would also draw your attention to the wording of his original post which clearly states that he is already being approached by patrons and that he needed adivice on what price to put on his work to them. This means that (in the eyes of others) his work is already deemed enough to be paid for.


Addressing his course description - its vague and I have no idea what level the course is aimed at nor at what kind of ages the course is taught to. I know that many in GCSE and A-level can get by with even just a point and shoot to start with and a bridge camera to follow - a DSLR or SLR not being a key requirement. He also says he only bought a DSLR 2 years ago but makes no mention that that was his first experience using one.
Lets not move things over to a hacking apart of his life history - its at this point mostly irrelvant to the topics at hand.

Also to the OP - do give that thead of mine a read again - then go through your work and be ruthless! Pick out a few of your very best work ( I would avoid any studio shots where you were perhaps advised or aided significantly in the lighting setup - stick to work you know exactly how to do yourself). Give it the description, the background and such and see what advice you can draw out of people. A focused separate discussion on this will serve a lot better than trying to continue in this thread (as its structure is somewhat broken as of now into several mini topics).

 

[racefan24]

You are right there is a hole in the story. Those two years were at a community college in BEGINNING photography classes. Plus I wasn't taking non stop photography classes too, you gotta throw in gen ed's too, so I wasn't really a full time photography student. When I took my first class at Columbia College, they actually made me start from stratch because I didn't know that.

 

[Overread]

You might also find these video critiques of interest:
zarias.com :: The blog of editorial photographer Zack Arias Critique

There is some very good and solid general advice in there. Its more from working in the professional market line than direct photography crits and a lot of the work is more portrait based, but the overall info is very good (and they are amusing to listen to as well which is always a bonus)