10 Reasons Why Professional Photographers Charge What They Do!

Stephentlig

And to be fair if you were truly immersed in the world of petty crime and drugs...then yes you'd be shooting up too.

I know people truly immersed in it and dont do it

people in the bad areas of Ireland live in it day in and day out and dont join in.

it still shows that not all people can be tagged the same, however the majority do just accept the norm and go along with what everyone else does, but when it comes to pricing photographers I dont go along with everyone else. what does this say about me then? am I a case for ripleys believe it or not?

mindundalk

Check this one out.:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=player_embedded#/

Stephentlig

haha everyone else does it for free ....reply... does that mean I gotta do it for free?

lol parts of it were funny, it'd be different though if he was asked to do it for charity, then his little rant wouldnt really swing with anyone.

tomcollins97

Interesting article. Would you perhaps also provide reasons why:

a) Professional Photographers charge so much for the pints, unframed. this is the killer

b) Professional Photographers (most of them) won't provide soft copies of images of their client.

Regarding point b, I would be more inclined to book a session if I thought I would get a DVD with x number of prints which I could then reproduce how I wished. I would pay more for the session in order to get this.

tiffmister

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Interesting article. Would you perhaps also provide reasons why:

a) Professional Photographers charge so much for the pints, unframed. this is the killer

b) Professional Photographers (most of them) won't provide soft copies of images of their client.

Regarding point b, I would be more inclined to book a session if I thought I would get a DVD with x number of prints which I could then reproduce how I wished. I would pay more for the session in order to get this.

I take it your one of these guys whom never buy a music cd you just borrow of your mates and copy it or buy ripped of videos from dodgy guys in market stalls.

Wake up!!! copyright is the same for photographers as it is for musicians filmmakers and artists etc.

Why would they spend thousands on equipment and education just to give all away for nothing to someone who thinks digital means FREE!!!

Eirebear

tomcollins97 wrote: »

b) Professional Photographers (most of them) won't provide soft copies of images of their client.

Regarding point b, I would be more inclined to book a session if I thought I would get a DVD with x number of prints which I could then reproduce how I wished. I would pay more for the session in order to get this.

I understand this seems to be the way the world is going, however i disagree with it in many ways.

Printing, mounting, framing and presenting are all art forms within themselves. In many cases the photographer has his own ideas on how this should be done, and how things like this work best from his own experience.

Look at the difference between even a high quality home printer, and a quality lab print for example.

There is nothing worse than seeing someone take one of your images, print it badly and then stick it in a tacky frame and hang it on there wall.
It doesnt do the photographer any good to have people see an image with their name attached presented badly.

For me the photographer is right to be protective over how their images are printed etc.

tiffmister

Eirebear wrote: »

I understand this seems to be the way the world is going, however i disagree with it in many ways.

Printing, mounting, framing and presenting are all art forms within themselves. In many cases the photographer has his own ideas on how this should be done, and how things like this work best from his own experience.

Look at the difference between even a high quality home printer, and a quality lab print for example.

There is nothing worse than seeing someone take one of your images, print it badly and then stick it in a tacky frame and hang it on there wall.
It doesnt do the photographer any good to have people see an image with their name attached presented badly.

For me the photographer is right to be protective over how their images are printed etc.

There is a saying my father always use to say to me

NEVER TEACH A PIG HOW TO SING BECAUSE YOUR ONLY WASTING YOUR TIME AND IT IRRITATES THE PIG!

Eirebear

Oink!

Stephentlig

tiffmister wrote: »

There is a saying my father always use to say to me

NEVER TEACH A PIG HOW TO SING BECAUSE YOUR ONLY WASTING YOUR TIME AND IT IRRITATES THE PIG!

tiffmister, you'd wanna be careful as your anecdote could be viewed as one being a personal insult.

tiffmister

Stephentlig wrote: »

tiffmister, you'd wanna be careful as your anecdote could be viewed as one being a personal insult.

Sorry if i hv insulted anyone but im just pointing out the obvious.

Stephentlig

tiffmister wrote: »

Sorry if i hv insulted anyone but im just pointing out the obvious.

understandable, but tom was just asking from a perspective of not being in the ''know'', not from one already having a knowledge of what you just told him. your anecdote would apply more to him had he of known already and was still swimming against the tide and disagreeing with you.

I understand it wasnt a personal insult but just hope it isn't viewed as one

tomcollins97

tiffmister wrote: »

I take it your one of these guys whom never buy a music cd you just borrow of your mates and copy it or buy ripped of videos from dodgy guys in market stalls.

No

tiffmister wrote: »

Wake up!!! copyright is the same for photographers as it is for musicians filmmakers and artists etc.

When you buy a CD you play it as much as you want, you can copy it as many times as you want for your own use. You can watch a film as often as you like. So why, when a photo is taken of 'me' which I pay for should i not be able to reprouce it as often as I like for my personal use and not for any profit?

tiffmister wrote: »

Why would they spend thousands on equipment and education just to give all away for nothing to someone who thinks digital means FREE!!!

See above. I pay to have a portrait taken, should I not then 'own' that portrait to do with as I please?

tiffmister

No Tom, you are paying for the right to own a printed copy only.

copyright clearly states that the photographer owns the copyright

tiffmister

tiffmister wrote: »

No Tom, you are paying for the right to own a printed copy only.

copyright clearly states that the photographer owns the copyright

No Tom, you are paying for the right to own a printed copy only.

copyright clearly states that the photographer owns the copyright i.e the photograph

tomcollins97

I looked at a few places near to where i live and the charge for prints, unframed, started at €40. The session was €70.

It does not cost €40 to print a high quality photo. Why can't photographers be more upfront and charge more for the session? As many people pointed out this is where the expertise is important.

Any idiot can print a picture, that does not take skill. I have no issue paying for the skill and experience of a photographer but I cannot stand being ripped off on the prints.

Eirebear

tomcollins97 wrote: »

When you buy a CD you play it as much as you want, you can copy it as many times as you want for your own use. You can watch a film as often as you like. So why, when a photo is taken of 'me' which I pay for should i not be able to reprouce it as often as I like for my personal use and not for any profit?

But you cannot copy a movie or a music album as many times as you want dude, i think the laws state you are allowed one back up copy if im right?
You can look at the photo as often as you want, in the same way as you can watch the film, or listen to the music as many times as you want.
The rules are the exact same.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

See above. I pay to have a portrait taken, should I not then 'own' that portrait to do with as I please?

No, the Photographer still owns the copyright. He can, if he wishes hand over that copright to you. This would involve giving you the digital files to do as you wish with them. But why should he?
Does a film maker say, "Oh you bought my DVD, tell you what why dont you take all the scenes we filmed, and edit it into whatever form you wish?"
Or your favourite band say, "Hi, thankyou for buying our CD, because of your custom we have decided to give you all of the seperate tracks from the recording studio, each instrument seperately recorded so that you can put together your very own remix of our songs...have fun!"

Of course they dont. So why should the photographer say, "i spent years training my eye, learning how to get the best our of my equipment, working with light and finally learning how to present the resulting images to the best of my ability. So much so that you came to my studio and payed me to do this for you...so in return, here have some digital files. Do as you wish with them, stick them through photoshop and make them look like crazy LSD trips, purples and yellows and blues...print it out on your little Kodak photo printer, stick in a gaudy pink frame and hang it on your wall. When people come to your home and ask about it, it would be great if you told them who the photographer was...."

tomcollins97

tiffmister wrote: »

No Tom, you are paying for the right to own a printed copy only.

copyright clearly states that the photographer owns the copyright i.e the photograph

But why charge so much for print in relation to the charge of actually taking the photograph which is apparenlty where experience, skill and expensive equipment is required?

Eirebear

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Any idiot can print a picture, that does not take skill. I have no issue paying for the skill and experience of a photographer but I cannot stand being ripped off on the prints.

Oooft!

Any idiot can print a picture this is true.
But put the Idiots print beside an Experts print, and youll soon see the difference.

tomcollins97

Eirebear wrote: »

Of course they dont. So why should the photographer say, "i spent years training my eye, learning how to get the best our of my equipment, working with light and finally learning how to present the resulting images to the best of my ability. So much so that you came to my studio and payed me to do this for you...so in return, here have some digital files. ...."

But, as I have have already said, if their 'eye' is really what you are paying for why don't photographers charge more for the shoot and less for the prints? Instead of around €70-€100 for a shoot + €40+ for each print I would rather pay a higher amount for the shoot itself and then cost for the print. To me, paying way over the cost for a print is a total rip-off. If the photographer is as good as he thinks he should be able to make enough on the shoot and not screw clients on the prints.

tomcollins97

Eirebear wrote: »

Oooft!

Any idiot can print a picture this is true.
But put the Idiots print beside an Experts print, and youll soon see the difference.

How so? once the digital image is processed it will print the same on high quality photo paper on a good printer regardless of who prints it.

Eirebear

tomcollins97 wrote: »

But, as I have have already said, if their 'eye' is really what you are paying for why don't photographers charge more for the shoot and less for the prints? Instead of around €70-€100 for a shoot + €40+ for each print I would rather pay a higher amount for the shoot itself and then cost for the print. To me, paying way over the cost for a print is a total rip-off. If the photographer is as good as he thinks he should be able to make enough on the shoot and not screw clients on the prints.

Because it is a business, the first rule of a business is to get people through the door is it not?
If the photographer upped his price for an hour in the studio, people would be less inclined to go.
The complaints would be "But there are no physical outgoings, why does he need to charge so much!?"
Its a model that has served photographers well over the years, i dont see why they should change that. You are under no obligation to buy the prints, and if you didnt you would feel even more ripped off if you had been charged 150 quid for a studio session would you not?

tomcollins97 wrote: »

How so? once the digital image is processed it will print the same on high quality photo paper on a good printer regardless of who prints it.

If you were to have everything calibrated identically, and used the same Paper, Ink and Printer, under the same conditions then yes.

However, how many people have access to a printer that is of the quality were talking about?

tiffmister

tomcollins97 wrote: »

I looked at a few places near to where i live and the charge for prints, unframed, started at €40. The session was €70.

It does not cost €40 to print a high quality photo. Why can't photographers be more upfront and charge more for the session? As many people pointed out this is where the expertise is important.

Any idiot can print a picture, that does not take skill. I have no issue paying for the skill and experience of a photographer but I cannot stand being ripped off on the prints.

Ok then what do you think a good photographer is worth?

Sleepy

tomcollins97 wrote: »

How so? once the digital image is processed it will print the same on high quality photo paper on a good printer regardless of who prints it.

I had notions like that when I first started out on digital photography. After a few frustrating days of trying to get decent prints out of a printer from the Canon home/consumer range, I started to see things differently.

Most of us can manage an 'okay' image from a regular photo inkjet but someone who's livelihood depends on the quality of their work's reputation suffers badly if others are shown copies of these 'okay' prints rather than the properly printed images you'd get from a pro using high-end printers.

There are also issues around the lifespan of the print due to differences in home-use versus commercial inks and papers, fading, inaccurate colour reproduction etc.

All that said, if I were getting married I'd probably be looking for a photographer to include a soft copy of the images in the package myself (and would happily pay a few hundred extra for it) as I'd like the right to get someone like stcstc on this forum to do large prints for me and the ability to have the images on my laptop etc. I'd probably get small cheap prints done from somewhere on-line for some of the Aunty's etc. who wouldn't notice the difference between a good print and a bad and wouldn't know the name of the photographer in the first place. But, I appreciate that I'd be paying for that privilege.

mindundalk

tomcollins97 wrote: »

I looked at a few places near to where i live and the charge for prints, unframed, started at €40. The session was €70.

It does not cost €40 to print a high quality photo. Why can't photographers be more upfront and charge more for the session? As many people pointed out this is where the expertise is important.

Any idiot can print a picture, that does not take skill. I have no issue paying for the skill and experience of a photographer but I cannot stand being ripped off on the prints.

Congrats!!

You have managed to insult every photographer in this forum.

Eirebear

mindundalk wrote: »

Congrats!!

You have managed to insult every photographer in this forum.

Ah now thats not really fair, theyre only conveying there feelings. its obvious from their posts that they dont really understand what goes into a print etc, but at least theyre willing to have conversation.

A bunch of photographers getting all snooty and annoyed isnt really going to help the case is it?

higgins2010

Eirebear wrote: »

Ah now thats not really fair, theyre only conveying there feelings. its obvious from their posts that they dont really understand what goes into a print etc, but at least theyre willing to have conversation.

A bunch of photographers getting all snooty and annoyed isnt really going to help the case is it?

well when he says things like ( any idiot can take a picture) i think its hard to look beyond what he dosent seem to understand.

Eirebear

higgins2010 wrote: »

well when he says things like ( any idiot can take a picture) i think its hard to look beyond what he dosent seem to understand.

Fair enough, i tend to believe you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

I'd rather TomCollins went away from this discussion with a more rounded view on what photographers do, and why they charge for it than thinking "Jeez Photographers are a bunch of uppity feckers"

higgins2010

Eirebear wrote: »

Fair enough, i tend to believe you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

I'd rather TomCollins went away from this discussion with a more rounded view on what photographers do, and why they charge for it than thinking "Jeez Photographers are a bunch of uppity feckers"

Good point

higgins2010

Eirebear wrote: »

Fair enough, i tend to believe you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

I'd rather TomCollins went away from this discussion with a more rounded view on what photographers do, and why they charge for it than thinking "Jeez Photographers are a bunch of uppity feckers"

I think he needs to do a search on copyright.

tiffmister

tomcollins97 wrote: »

How so? once the digital image is processed it will print the same on high quality photo paper on a good printer regardless of who prints it.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

mindundalk

Eirebear wrote: »

Fair enough, i tend to believe you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

I'd rather TomCollins went away from this discussion with a more rounded view on what photographers do, and why they charge for it than thinking "Jeez Photographers are a bunch of uppity feckers"

You know what!! your right.

nilhg

Eirebear wrote: »

But you cannot copy a movie or a music album as many times as you want dude, i think the laws state you are allowed one back up copy if im right?
You can look at the photo as often as you want, in the same way as you can watch the film, or listen to the music as many times as you want.
The rules are the exact same.



No, the Photographer still owns the copyright. He can, if he wishes hand over that copright to you. This would involve giving you the digital files to do as you wish with them. But why should he?
Does a film maker say, "Oh you bought my DVD, tell you what why dont you take all the scenes we filmed, and edit it into whatever form you wish?"
Or your favourite band say, "Hi, thankyou for buying our CD, because of your custom we have decided to give you all of the seperate tracks from the recording studio, each instrument seperately recorded so that you can put together your very own remix of our songs...have fun!"

There is one important distinction though, the person has walked in off the street and commissioned the photographer to take his portrait, presumably there is no model release so the photographers copyright is not unlimited, he can't use that image for commercial purposes unless I'm very much mistaken.

Don't forget too that in most cases the band or film maker won't have full artistic control, some where along the line the money men will be pulling the strings.

Eirebear wrote: »

Of course they dont. So why should the photographer say, "i spent years training my eye, learning how to get the best our of my equipment, working with light and finally learning how to present the resulting images to the best of my ability. So much so that you came to my studio and payed me to do this for you...so in return, here have some digital files. Do as you wish with them, stick them through photoshop and make them look like crazy LSD trips, purples and yellows and blues...print it out on your little Kodak photo printer, stick in a gaudy pink frame and hang it on your wall. When people come to your home and ask about it, it would be great if you told them who the photographer was...."

First rule of business is though "he who pays the piper calls the tune", if a deal that satisfies both parties can be done then why worry.

nilhg

mindundalk wrote: »

Check this one out.:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=player_embedded#/

Interesting that you used this video to backup a point about professional photographers rights, I wonder how much he gets from youtube for his appearance?

Anyway maybe you've seen this

Stephentlig

nilhg wrote: »

Interesting that you used this video to backup a point about professional photographers rights, I wonder how much he gets from youtube for his appearance?

Anyway maybe you've seen this

to my knowledge he didnt, it was in reply to me with relation to people doing whatever everyone else does, and this video proved my subjective analysis (being that not everyone does the same thing as everyone else) to be correct.

tiffmister

nilhg wrote: »

There is one important distinction though, the person has walked in off the street and commissioned the photographer to take his portrait, presumably there is no model release so the photographers copyright is not unlimited, he can't use that image for commercial purposes unless I'm very much mistaken.

Don't forget too that in most cases the band or film maker won't have full artistic control, some where along the line the money men will be pulling the strings.





First rule of business is though "he who pays the piper calls the tune", if a deal that satisfies both parties can be done then why worry.

Thats depends on the photographer and in my experience most good photographers are very approachable when it comes to discount on a good order

Borderfox

tiffmister wrote: »

Thats depends on the photographer and in my experience most good photographers are very approachable when it comes to discount on a good order

Very true, theres always a deal to be done.

higgins2010

tomcollins97 wrote: »

I looked at a few places near to where i live and the charge for prints, unframed, started at €40. The session was €70.

It does not cost €40 to print a high quality photo. Why can't photographers be more upfront and charge more for the session? As many people pointed out this is where the expertise is important.

Any idiot can print a picture, that does not take skill. I have no issue paying for the skill and experience of a photographer but I cannot stand being ripped off on the prints.

You know you could have a point but at the moment people seem to think just because they can get a 7x5 print in a photoshop for 20cent OUT OF THERE OWN CAMERA dosen't mean the same rule or price should apply when you purchase from a professional photographer (there running a business).

DaireQuinlan

nilhg wrote: »

Interesting that you used this video to backup a point about professional photographers rights, I wonder how much he gets from youtube for his appearance?

Anyway maybe you've seen this

haha, I read that the other day, it's hilarious.

jaypeg

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

haha, I read that the other day, it's hilarious.

I really think the guy was just trying to be humorous.

tiffmister

higgins2010 wrote: »

You know you could have a point but at the moment people seem to think just because they can get a 7x5 print in a photoshop for 20cent OUT OF THERE OWN CAMERA dosen't mean the same rule or price should apply when you purchase from a professional photographer (there running a business).

your right about that one.

DaireQuinlan

jaypeg wrote: »

I really think the guy was just trying to be humorous.

who, Harlan Ellison ?? He's an infamously difficult character. He has also railed for years against people appropriating his works, and has filed numerous copyright suits, including one against James Cameron IIRC, for terminator. I don't think he was joking :-)

jaypeg

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

who, Harlan Ellison ?? He's an infamously difficult character. He has also railed for years against people appropriating his works, and has filed numerous copyright suits, including one against James Cameron IIRC, for terminator. I don't think he was joking :-)

Maybe!! but i don't think so.

mindundalk

jaypeg wrote: »

I really think the guy was just trying to be humorous.

Got it in one, were would be without it.

tiffmister

mindundalk wrote: »

Got it in one, were would be without it.

Yeah a good sense oh humor is essential on discussions like this one

higgins2010

K_user wrote: »

How many people here have heard the line "You have a good camera, you take the photograph"?

The assumption by the average joe is that the bigger and fancier the camera the better the photograph. Even my wife, after many years watching me make a pratt out of myself, still doesn't understand that post-processing can be just as important as getting into the right position. And that just little tweaks can make all the difference.

My mother in-law is convinced that my DSLR will beat her P&S every-time. But it won't, because for family snap shots P&S's deliver out of the box results without the fuss. Thats what they are designed to do.

My point being that to the general public a proper looking camera should give proper photographs. That the guy behind is just the facilitator. They really, truly, give little thought to anything that happens after that button is pressed. Why would they? They have no experience in it. For a "normal" person you press, you print, you go home happy.

Yeah and then there is the kind that have a 12million pixel camera,how do break it to them that its really just a phone?

dinneenp

higgins2010 wrote: »

just because they can get a 7x5 print in a photoshop for 20cent OUT OF THERE OWN CAMERA dosen't mean the same rule or price should apply when you purchase from a professional photographer (there running a business).

I know a print onlin isn't 100% as good as one a professional would create but the difference is very minimal and unnoticed to the layman. But I still find it hard to accept that a pro would charge €10 if not more for a 20*30cm print. To me the profit margin is MASSIVE (correct me if I'm wrong).

You can't compare buying a dvd and buying a photo- the dvd is mass produced, you buy the exact same item that thousands of other people do.

When I get a photo taken by a pro there's a '1-1 special relationship' and the hiring/act/time/money is just for me (it's a personal service). This is why most people think that they can make as many copies as they like and are suprised/angry when they:
1. find out they can't
2. find out the reprints are EXTREMELLY EXPENSIVE (e.g. If I want an extra 40 wedding prints, you can be talking €200 + euros).

Sure the pro owns copyright but most people would expect then get some kind of reproduction rights.

Borderfox

I would be of the opinion to give the customer what they want in regards to prints, if they buy a print say 8x10 or 8x12 I give them the digital file also. I have 2 pricing structures for portraits example A: high sitting fee and low print price and B: no sitting fee and high print price.

Dinneenp, I think you would be lucky to get 40 prints for €200 off some of the operators I have met more like double or triple it.
I offer digital files with all of my packages, even at that I still get orders for prints..

eas

dinneenp wrote: »

To me the profit margin is MASSIVE (correct me if I'm wrong).

OK, you're wrong.

Think about it - you come into my studio (some day...drool) and pay €100 for an hour long portrait session. There's half an hour admin work directly related to your booking. For an hour session, say that's 80 mins in total after formalities and such. So, up to 110mins of my time so far. Another hour in front of the computer, another 30mins admin, another hour for viewing. So, over 4 hours work for your €100 hour session.

After taxes I'm getting less than €20 an hour.

I'm sure if you ask around, you'll find that it costs much more than €20/hour to run a photography studio, not to mention feed a family of 4, pay a mortgage and support a prescription drug habit.

ThOnda

Well, I haven't read everything in this thread, but personally, I have few ideas based on absolutely no knowledge of professional photography trade:

1. because they have to
2. because they are worth it
3. because they find people willing to pay such money

As far as I understand it, the price jumps from the basic survival level higher depending on type of work, cost of the work and type of customer.

But as usually, I am just typing anything to avoid some real work

tiffmister

eas wrote: »

OK, you're wrong.

Think about it - you come into my studio (some day...drool) and pay €100 for an hour long portrait session. There's half an hour admin work directly related to your booking. For an hour session, say that's 80 mins in total after formalities and such. So, up to 110mins of my time so far. Another hour in front of the computer, another 30mins admin, another hour for viewing. So, over 4 hours work for your €100 hour session.

After taxes I'm getting less than €20 an hour.

I'm sure if you ask around, you'll find that it costs much more than €20/hour to run a photography studio, not to mention feed a family of 4, pay a mortgage and support a prescription drug habit.

Yeah but the customer refuses to except that, they cant see past what they actually want to pay for it. which is clearly for nothing, but your right it does cost more than €20 per hr to run a respectable photography studio.