You got my attention........

[MLeeK]

I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure, or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer. Any photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.

This photograph is by Irene Suchocki from Montreal, who is arguably very successful. She sells on the handmade site, Etsy: Dreamy photographs of Paris Venice NYC by EyePoetryPhotography In fact, she's THE highest selling photographer on that site. She averages about 8 to 10 sales per day with her average item price being somewhere around $30.00. Etsy is an online venue and shops are open 365 days a year so by estimation she makes somewhere between AT LEAST $88,000 and $110,000 per anum on this venue alone. These photos have nothing to do with most of the "rules" or "advice" that are commonly given out on this forum but she appeals to a wide audience and is selling.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with any photographer having a solid foundation in theory of composition, and lighting, etc. etc... but there is still so much room for creative expression that I think can get stifled sometimes around here. Irene isn't someone I'd put on my wall, but she does amazingly well. If she posted for a C&C here, I wonder if she wouldn't be torn apart in minutes.

In the end, the clients/customers are what decide whether or not a photo "works." If this OP likes super-saturated, over contrasty images and that's her style... then... that's her style. If her clients value her work... they value it.

If it's a question of whether or not the market doesn't understand what "good" photography is, that is a question I'm not sure needs to be answered. If the goal is to have a photography business, it matters little whether or not the buyers are refined enough to care for the rule of thirds.

Having said that, Elizabeth, you should strive to know all you can know. However, in the end, allow for your personal style as well.

That $88 to $110K per year sounds good... Until you find out what her COG and CODB is. At $110K per year she's probably netting about $26,00 IF she is meeting the IDEALS for a home based photographer. Over 90% of home studios are not meeting the ideals by a significant amount.

Why do you think that? Her equipment costs are paid for (assuming she's taken the photo, which she has). It costs $0.20 to list an item on Etsy; paypal takes 3.5%... printing costs aren't 75% of the item and shipping is paid for by the customer. How would she lose 75% of her sales?

You've not accounted for ANY of her CODB in that. Yes, it's cheap as hell to list and sell on etsy and the print itself costs next to nothing. But every click of the shutter on a professional camera costs you approximately .016 cents. That is only the camera body. That camera has to be replaced when it's life is up and that costs. It cost her money when she bought it and if she invested her own money in it, that money has to be paid back before it's profit. Then there is all of her other CODB like the vehicle that got her to the location to take the photo, the lens, the insurance on her equipment and her business, business license, marketing, accounting and her taxes, accountant at the end of each year assuming she does all of her own accounting all year long, her computer to process the image and to list it on etsy, her internet to be able to get to etsy, her software for processing the image, office supplies needed for her record keeping, printer for her record keeping... The list seems endless. I know it well this week cuz I just took it all to my accountant. Those costs are usually more than 75% in a small home studio. Read the benchmark studies by PPA.

 

[MWC2]

She lives in Montreal, she's paying Canadian and Provincial taxes... she is paying approximately 30% in taxes on salary alone. Plus on her sales she will need to pay the Canadian Gov't the harmonized sales tax (provincial and federal sales taxes). After her COG and other standard CODB I am sure her take home pay is less than many here think it is.

 

[punch]

That $88 to $110K per year sounds good... Until you find out what her COG and CODB is. At $110K per year she's probably netting about $26,00 IF she is meeting the IDEALS for a home based photographer. Over 90% of home studios are not meeting the ideals by a significant amount.

Why do you think that? Her equipment costs are paid for (assuming she's taken the photo, which she has). It costs $0.20 to list an item on Etsy; paypal takes 3.5%... printing costs aren't 75% of the item and shipping is paid for by the customer. How would she lose 75% of her sales?

You've not accounted for ANY of her CODB in that. Yes, it's cheap as hell to list and sell on etsy and the print itself costs next to nothing. But every click of the shutter on a professional camera costs you approximately .016 cents. That is only the camera body. That camera has to be replaced when it's life is up and that costs. It cost her money when she bought it and if she invested her own money in it, that money has to be paid back before it's profit. Then there is all of her other CODB like the vehicle that got her to the location to take the photo, the lens, the insurance on her equipment and her business, business license, marketing, accounting and her taxes, accountant at the end of each year assuming she does all of her own accounting all year long, her computer to process the image and to list it on etsy, her internet to be able to get to etsy, her software for processing the image, office supplies needed for her record keeping, printer for her record keeping... The list seems endless. I know it well this week cuz I just took it all to my accountant. Those costs are usually more than 75% in a small home studio. Read the benchmark studies by PPA.

Hmmm. Well, I can't tell you you're wrong about your own accounting or what you're reading; but as a fellow Etsy seller who files taxes every year, that percentage for cost of doing business is REALLY high in my experience. Granted, I don't sell photographs.

 

[punch]

She lives in Montreal, she's paying Canadian and Provincial taxes... she is paying approximately 30% in taxes on salary alone. Plus on her sales she will need to pay the Canadian Gov't the harmonized sales tax (provincial and federal sales taxes). After her COG and other standard CODB I am sure her take home pay is less than many here think it is.

I am only surmising what her gross income is on ONE venue. Someone making $100,000 gross in Canada is making a very favourable wage and they're paying income tax just like a business owner (but without the write-offs associated with being an independent business owner). Also, typically Paypal includes sales tax at the point of purchase for those that are charging it which isn't reflected in her listing prices.

At any rate... my point is simply that there is a lot of room for artistic license in this market.

 

[MLeeK]

I agree with you... and i said as much. i think knowing how to do things properly behind the lens is absolutely going to improve one's photography regardless of how much artistic license they take.

I just think that getting bogged down in whether or not the market demands "good" photography is a waste of time, unfortunately. And yes, you should sell on that site; it's a wonderful opportunity. However, for many, it's a sobering example of how "even i could do that crap!" isn't true... because a) "you" (not you, specifically, but anyone) didn't, and b) "you" likely can't. Etsy is competitive as hell.

At any rate... my point is simply that there is a lot of room for artistic license in this market.

YES! You are completely right on that mark and it's the best outlook ANY photographer who wants to be a professional can possibly have. That is what will make you successful with just mediocre skills. HOWEVER, it won't make you succeed in getting someone to purchase poorly executed crap either. There must be a balance of both style and skill. Even the best salesman can only sell so much crap.
The image you posted is well executed, properly exposed and properly focused for what it is. It took some skill to get that. She had to know how-granted she can find it on the internet, but that is TIME invested and time is money.

 

[MTVision]

Hmmm. Well, I can't tell you you're wrong about your own accounting; but as a fellow Etsy seller who files taxes every year, that percentage for cost of doing business is REALLY high in my opinion.

Not really if you think about it. It isn't profit until she deducts all that from what shes made in sales including the tax mentioned.

 

[punch]

I agree with you... and i said as much. i think knowing how to do things properly behind the lens is absolutely going to improve one's photography regardless of how much artistic license they take.

I just think that getting bogged down in whether or not the market demands "good" photography is a waste of time, unfortunately. And yes, you should sell on that site; it's a wonderful opportunity. However, for many, it's a sobering example of how "even i could do that crap!" isn't true... because a) "you" (not you, specifically, but anyone) didn't, and b) "you" likely can't. Etsy is competitive as hell.

At any rate... my point is simply that there is a lot of room for artistic license in this market.

YES! You are completely right on that mark and it's the best outlook ANY photographer who wants to be a professional can possibly have. That is what will make you successful with just mediocre skills. HOWEVER, it won't make you succeed in getting someone to purchase poorly executed crap either. There must be a balance of both style and skill. Even the best salesman can only sell so much crap.

agreed.

 

[MLeeK]

Why do you think that? Her equipment costs are paid for (assuming she's taken the photo, which she has). It costs $0.20 to list an item on Etsy; paypal takes 3.5%... printing costs aren't 75% of the item and shipping is paid for by the customer. How would she lose 75% of her sales?

You've not accounted for ANY of her CODB in that. Yes, it's cheap as hell to list and sell on etsy and the print itself costs next to nothing. But every click of the shutter on a professional camera costs you approximately .016 cents. That is only the camera body. That camera has to be replaced when it's life is up and that costs. It cost her money when she bought it and if she invested her own money in it, that money has to be paid back before it's profit. Then there is all of her other CODB like the vehicle that got her to the location to take the photo, the lens, the insurance on her equipment and her business, business license, marketing, accounting and her taxes, accountant at the end of each year assuming she does all of her own accounting all year long, her computer to process the image and to list it on etsy, her internet to be able to get to etsy, her software for processing the image, office supplies needed for her record keeping, printer for her record keeping... The list seems endless. I know it well this week cuz I just took it all to my accountant. Those costs are usually more than 75% in a small home studio. Read the benchmark studies by PPA.

Hmmm. Well, I can't tell you you're wrong about your own accounting or what you're reading; but as a fellow Etsy seller who files taxes every year, that percentage for cost of doing business is REALLY high in my experience. Granted, I don't sell photographs.

It's not something I just made up. It's a full out study done by the Professional Photographers of America who took the time to come up with what the average actually IS and what it SHOULD BE at the best. That is what it SHOULD be. Not many are even making that mark. The profit margin is much less for most photographers. PPA arguably the largest governing body for professional photographers in the world. WPPi is close, but I believe it's still smaller.

 

[Elizabeth30]

Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.

Because the mother who wants her kids every day moments to be photographed, wants they photographed in an artistic way. Tell me you can take a point and shoot and get a good artistic photo? The photo of my daughter napping does have issues but I was trying to focus on her bunny so that she would be blurred in the background. I edited it with a bit to much haze even for my taste but I love the idea anyway. You can't take that same photo with a point and shoot. Not by a long shot. It may not look professional or "technically" correct but it does like artistic.

And as for the photos you posted, REALLY?? They look very posed and unnatural to me. And I really dislike the back drop on the second one. Sorry, I don't like to be critical in a forum where I am less than experienced and the noob but they seriously look very posed.

 

[MLeeK]

Elizabeth-sorry for the hijack!

 

[MWC2]

Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.

Because the mother who wants her kids every day moments to be photographed, wants they photographed in an artistic way. Tell me you can take a point and shoot and get a good artistic photo? The photo of my daughter napping does have issues but I was trying to focus on her bunny so that she would be blurred in the background. I edited it with a bit to much haze even for my taste but I love the idea anyway. You can't take that same photo with a point and shoot. Not by a long shot. It may not look professional or "technically" correct but it does like artistic.

And as for the photos you posted, REALLY?? They look very posed and unnatural to me. And I really dislike the back drop on the second one. Sorry, I don't like to be critical in a forum where I am less than experienced and the noob but they seriously look very posed.

Images that are OOF, are not artistic they are simply out of focus. You can't start calling it "artistic" until you can nail your focus 100% of the time and plan a shot to be soft, carry it off and NOT have people point out that the image has issues. I'm sorry you feel you are being picked on but in all honesty you have a long way to go before you can call your images "artistic" right now they are out of focus.

As a Mom I would not hire a photographer to take these types of images of my children, I would be very disappointed and upset if these were the types of images you gave me.

 

[MLeeK]

Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.

Because the mother who wants her kids every day moments to be photographed, wants they photographed in an artistic way. Tell me you can take a point and shoot and get a good artistic photo? The photo of my daughter napping does have issues but I was trying to focus on her bunny so that she would be blurred in the background. I edited it with a bit to much haze even for my taste but I love the idea anyway. You can't take that same photo with a point and shoot. Not by a long shot. It may not look professional or "technically" correct but it does like artistic.

And as for the photos you posted, REALLY?? They look very posed and unnatural to me. And I really dislike the back drop on the second one. Sorry, I don't like to be critical in a forum where I am less than experienced and the noob but they seriously look very posed.

The point was that you were using this as a PROFESSIONAL representation for the mom who wants her kids captured naturally.

Yes, I can take a point and shoot and get a good artistic photo if I have to and there is nothing in that image of your daughter I couldn't do with any point and shoot and so could anyone else here.
You have every right to dislike the backdrop. I hate it and I think it looks like cheap tie dye, but it wasn't my choice for that shoot. Which is a great example here-it's a hunk of crap as far as backdrops go, but the sister (custody) chose it because she felt it really reflected this kid. Let me tell you... I wanted to work with that thing like I wanted a trip to the sewer plant. If you saw the thing in real life you'd hate it even more. However, I had to take what she chose and make it into a good image. It took skill and lighting AND editing/processing. This is in a PROFESSIONAL capacity not as a mom.
When I set out after my son that day I was setting out for a portrait of him come hell or high water. I didn't want a snapshot of him-although I did get a ton of those that I love as a mom. I wanted a finished product, so I set out chasing him around with a flash. It was full sun and I knew I would need it in order to get good exposure with no horrid shadows on him or his eyes.
Your image of the baby is a beautiful mom image. But you were using it as an example of what you are talking about with Keith regarding the every corner cheap fautographer.

 

[Ballistics]

Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.

Because the mother who wants her kids every day moments to be photographed, wants they photographed in an artistic way. Tell me you can take a point and shoot and get a good artistic photo? The photo of my daughter napping does have issues but I was trying to focus on her bunny so that she would be blurred in the background. I edited it with a bit to much haze even for my taste but I love the idea anyway. You can't take that same photo with a point and shoot. Not by a long shot. It may not look professional or "technically" correct but it does like artistic.

And as for the photos you posted, REALLY?? They look very posed and unnatural to me. And I really dislike the back drop on the second one. Sorry, I don't like to be critical in a forum where I am less than experienced and the noob but they seriously look very posed.

Wow. I know I always advocate that gear matters but holy **** do you have a lot to learn.

 

[Elizabeth30]

Wow. I know I always advocate that gear matters but holy **** do you have a lot to learn.

LMAO!! :lmao: You are correct! Thank you captain!!

 

[MLeeK]

We're all jumping ahead of the game here. Elizabeth has some phenomenal potential and she may well be creating something truly amazing. We aren't going to know and neither is she until her monitor is calibrated. The shot of the daughter in the snow is a good basic shot. The one she posted that we edited is a pretty good piece to work with, the one of the girl on the tracks that she posted the original is a good basic shot.
It's getting thrown in the editing and she isn't even seeing what is happening to her editing because of the calibration issue.
Critique of exposure and color are useless until you have truly calibrated monitor.