When should I start charging?

[tirediron]

...I always laugh when people accuse "natural light photographers" as not really knowing photography...

A good photographer understands light. Period. He/she knows when ambient light alone is sufficient, when reflectors, diffusers and scrims are necessary, and when full-on strobed light is necessary. With one exception, every self-proclaimed "natural light" photographer I've known has been: (1) Someone who doesn't understand how to effectively use supplemental light to enhance their images and tries to excuse that ignorance by decrying it; and (2) someone who doesn't realize that there is no such thing as artificial light. Artificial light sources? Yes, but a photon is a photon is a photon... They attach some sort mystique to strobed light and feel that it makes things look bad.

 

[KmH]

Many cities require proof of liability insurance to register a business. Many wedding venues will require a COI (Certificate Of Insurance) and will require that the venue be added as a additional insured entity.

More and more city, county, state and federal parks require permits (and a COI with them listed) to shoot for pay.

 

[CAP]

Wait till you have to have liability coverage and photographer malpractice insurance Ouch!

Did a wedding at Disney World and they require the photographer have a 1,000,000 dollar liability policy on him self.

I pay about $5,700 a year just in insurance.

 

[TWright33]

I meant being able to shoot in available light without using any type of flash.

Although I understand your point behind knowing natural light and how to use it, I do not think a photographer that uses a flash is not a skilled photographer because they use a flash.

If there is no light available, what are you supposed to do?

There are instances where you need a speedlight because there isn't enough light. Like wedding receptions. (I know that you know this, but I don't understand your reasoning).

 

[TWright33]

...I always laugh when people accuse "natural light photographers" as not really knowing photography...

A good photographer understands light. Period. He/she knows when ambient light alone is sufficient, when reflectors, diffusers and scrims are necessary, and when full-on strobed light is necessary. With one exception, every self-proclaimed "natural light" photographer I've known has been: (1) Someone who doesn't understand how to effectively use supplemental light to enhance their images and tries to excuse that ignorance by decrying it; and (2) someone who doesn't realize that there is no such thing as artificial light. Artificial light sources? Yes, but a photon is a photon is a photon... They attach some sort mystique to strobed light and feel that it makes things look bad.

This is kind of the point I was trying to make.

If there isn't enough ambient light to make the image you want, then am I not skilled because I used a flash?

 

[ruggedshutter]

Wait till you have to have liability coverage and photographer malpractice insurance Ouch!

Did a wedding at Disney World and they require the photographer have a 1,000,000 dollar liability policy on him self.

I pay about $5,700 a year just in insurance.

I have a pretty basic business policy and my coverage has a $1M liability. I thought that was on the low end to be honest.

 

[e.rose]

I meant being able to shoot in available light without using any type of flash.

Although I understand your point behind knowing natural light and how to use it, I do not think a photographer that uses a flash is not a skilled photographer because they use a flash.

If there is no light available, what are you supposed to do?

There are instances where you need a speedlight because there isn't enough light. Like wedding receptions. (I know that you know this, but I don't understand your reasoning).

...I always laugh when people accuse "natural light photographers" as not really knowing photography...

A good photographer understands light. Period. He/she knows when ambient light alone is sufficient, when reflectors, diffusers and scrims are necessary, and when full-on strobed light is necessary. With one exception, every self-proclaimed "natural light" photographer I've known has been: (1) Someone who doesn't understand how to effectively use supplemental light to enhance their images and tries to excuse that ignorance by decrying it; and (2) someone who doesn't realize that there is no such thing as artificial light. Artificial light sources? Yes, but a photon is a photon is a photon... They attach some sort mystique to strobed light and feel that it makes things look bad.

This is kind of the point I was trying to make.

If there isn't enough ambient light to make the image you want, then am I not skilled because I used a flash?

I don't think he was talking about those instances. I think he's talking about the instances where the light is perfect outside, but people ruin it by throwing up a flash because they don't know how to manipulate and read the abundant light that is there.

Obviously if there isn't enough light available, you need to add some.

I could be wrong.

Image can correct me if I'm assuming incorrectly about what he said.

 

[DeadEye]

When you are able to create a photograph. Just taking a properly exposed frame that is in focus don't cut it.
First ask the customer (Find Out) what they want then be able to deliver that to them.

 

[e.rose]

Wait till you have to have liability coverage and photographer malpractice insurance Ouch!

Whoops.

 

[12sndsgood]

I have a pretty basic business policy and my coverage has a $1M liability. I thought that was on the low end to be honest.

Agreed 1 mil seemed to be the min.


To the op if you know your skills right and can take great photos in the worst conditions (not just the best conditions ) and know the legalities if your area and the federal stuff and the insurance and marketing and accounting then go for it. Chances are the worst thing that will probably happen is you fail.

 

[imagemaker46]

I meant being able to shoot in available light without using any type of flash.

Although I understand your point behind knowing natural light and how to use it, I do not think a photographer that uses a flash is not a skilled photographer because they use a flash.

If there is no light available, what are you supposed to do?

There are instances where you need a speedlight because there isn't enough light. Like wedding receptions. (I know that you know this, but I don't understand your reasoning).

If there is no light it is dark. What I'm saying is that it takes a skilled photographer to really understand, read light and work with it. It does not take a skilled photographer to attach a flash or use a pop up flash to shoot an image. That's pretty basic stuff

 

[manaheim]

This is one of those questions that only you can answer.

I know someone who is a wedding photographer. In my opinion, he has almost no business doing it, but he does well and makes decent money and folks love him.

It's not a matter of it being subjective, so much as it being a matter of what the market will bear, and whether or not you can personally fill a need in that space.

Asking a bunch of random forum yahoos when you are ready is not the way to go about this.

 

[imagemaker46]

manaheim, you are quite correct in everything you said. It is difficult for anyone to tell anyone with a camera if they are ready to make a business out of it, there is only one person that can truly decide. I know a lot young guys(in their early 20's) that that would be doing really well if they of been around 20 years ago, but in these times they are trying to cut up a smaller pie, and unfortunately they are fighting for the crumbs.

There are holes in every field of photography that can be filled, but generally, it's going to be a stressful battle finding the ones that can generate enough clients/work to maintain a workable and successful business.

 

[tirediron]

...I always laugh when people accuse "natural light photographers" as not really knowing photography...

A good photographer understands light. Period. He/she knows when ambient light alone is sufficient, when reflectors, diffusers and scrims are necessary, and when full-on strobed light is necessary. With one exception, every self-proclaimed "natural light" photographer I've known has been: (1) Someone who doesn't understand how to effectively use supplemental light to enhance their images and tries to excuse that ignorance by decrying it; and (2) someone who doesn't realize that there is no such thing as artificial light. Artificial light sources? Yes, but a photon is a photon is a photon... They attach some sort mystique to strobed light and feel that it makes things look bad.

This is kind of the point I was trying to make.

If there isn't enough ambient light to make the image you want, then am I not skilled because I used a flash?

That's my thinking! Skill is creating a pleasing image. Full stop.

 

[manicmike]

In my area, everyone that owns a camera has a business and charges $50 for a session for crappy photos. So, I'd say go for it now. Everyone else is.