Time is money!

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by Photoboothguy

I'm finding this humorous.

You guys talk bad about the weekend warriors and moms with cameras, but then say you wouldn't want their clients anyway because they couldn't affort you.

There's a reason the budget photographers exist...customers like their prices. If these people can't afford you, then the weekend warriors aren't really your competition, are they? If they aren't your competition, then how can they be destroying the market?

There's a big difference between budget and cheap. $50.00 sitting fee- Cheap, $100.00 sitting fee - Budget, $200 Plus is what I charge,

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by Photoboothguy

So, what you're saying is, you have no problem with people charging less than you as long as they specify how their quality is different from their higher priced competition? That's even funnier. I hope you're doing this with your customers.

Come on, I'm sure he starts off every sales pitch with "I'm no David LaChappele but..."

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

...wwhhhaaatt? 60-90 minutes to do this? Are they doing it in the dark? With their feet?

I don't know what system she used to download her images from camera to computer, but I'm running a MacBook pro and Mac G5. Most of the editing I do is on the laptop through Photomechanics, which is a pretty fast system. I edit the CF cards first and then download the edits to the computer. I just happen to use three of the Lexar Professional UDMA FireWire 800 card readers, which takes about 6 minutes max to download 4 gigs worth of RAW images to a desktop folder. Sometimes I might shoot on a sporting event anywhere from 1800 to 3000 images depending on the types of sports, ranging from high school, college to the pros and it does take a while to do a quick edit through the takes on the CF cards.

I know you probably don't deal with a vast number of images that I do, so it takes me a bit of time, whereas you with your 100-300 images could be done in the dark with your feet rather quickly I'd say.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Sometimes I might shoot on a sporting event anywhere from 1800 to 3000 images depending on the types of sports, ranging from high school, college to the pros and it does take a while to do a quick edit through the takes on the CF cards.

Okay, but you originally said:

* 15-30 minutes prep time at client’s home
* 90 minutes-2 hours with client photographing subject

We're not getting a straight story here...

[Dennismc]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Photoboothguy: What you find funny isn't what we're complaining about. I have no problem with someone doing a job for less, what I have a problem with is someone claiming to do a high-quality, professional-class job for less. And that's what every professional hates too. I have no problem with weekend warriors making a buck: I have a problem with them advertising themselves as "as good as" the pros.

So to you there are no good photographers that can take an excellent picture on par with yours that can charge less then you and still make a profit? In order to be a pro and take good pictures in your book one has to charge what see think they should?

Who says how good they are? What about the pro who maybe works for a studio full time, does great work, but on the side he likes to do portraits since he doesn't get to do that at work? Is he not a professional? But yet he can charge less.

I have a friend that is a pretty darn good wedding photog, been around a long long time, but he loves also doing head shots and portraits in his studio as well, his charge for them is a lot less then most, cause its not the main money maker for him and he enjoys it. Still a pro, shots are just as good as most, if not better then some. But by your definition he is the one that bugs you?

As for the ones that claim to be as good as a pro and are not, dont worry about them, the market and client base will weed them out, same as any other industry. Does it hurt the industry? A little in the short term, but long term people become more educated and informed and thus know what to look for next time. Word of mouth spreads the good as well as the bad.

Now yes there are very bad photographers out there that claim to be as good as the pros (cl is full of them) But to make such a general statement about all of them is a little over the top.

[sk66]

All I got out of this is you need to be charging for your time, and factor it ALL in.

I won't do anything for less than I make /hr at my real job. If you are not making at least as much /hr, then you'd be better off working more hours at work....at least that has benefits and would make you a more valuable employee.

If you are not looking at it from some similar viewpoint, then you are undervaluing your time. And this is not, shouldn't be, just the perspective of someone for who money is not a concern.

When money was tight for me, I spent almost all of my time trying to make money. What this did was stress my relationships with my wife and minimised my relationships with my kids and probably contributed in part to my divorce....

If you are doing it just because you enjoy it, that's fine and there is personal value in that, but it is not a way to run a business and it is counter productive to those trying to run a business..

And I'll just say it... I believe an amateur with a reasonable amount of experience and adequate gear can probably deliver 80-90% the product a pro will in many situations... They will take longer, take and miss more shots, do more post work, etc etc, but in the end the customer won't know much difference. If the amateur is charging only 50% because they are not including time, no tax, under the table, etc etc....then the Pro 100% product is no longer worth the cost difference for many customers. Overall, the value dives. The pro finds it hard to continue making a living, and the aspiring pro hits a dead end.

Unfortunately, it's the way of the future. It's well on it's way to being a dead industry.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Okay, but you originally said:

* 15-30 minutes prep time at client’s home
* 90 minutes-2 hours with client photographing subject

We're not getting a straight story here...

I didn't orginaly say that, it was from another photographer's billing. Read the thread, especially at the bottom. **Special thanks to Marianne Drenthe for the above article**.
That's the way she does things, me......I have a different pricing for my workflow. Seems to me that you just wanna argue on any old thing here on DPS. I just trying to get folks here to understand that it's important to charge for your time on everything you do for a shoot. This is not just from my point of view, but others in the industry as well.

[Jim Poor]

Actually, I think the analogy was a bit off to begin with. I don't shoot weddings, but I'll stick to them for sake of the analogy being butchered here.

If I were to use cars, I'd probably use three categories. The Yugo, The Toyota, and the [insert favorite $100K+ car here].

Yugo = $500 wedding with all digital files and full rights
Toyota = more reasonably thought out wedding pricing, but not exorbitant
Ferrari = HUGE wedding photography budget.

Was there a time in my life when I could only afford a Yugo? Well, mine was a Chrysler k car, used and in crappy shape. Gave me fits all the time, but did get me around, even in my first tour in Germany.

Was there a time in my life when I could afford a Ferrari? Almost. Before my "day job" went away we could have if we really wanted, but we opted for something more reasonable along with some trips back to Europe.

How about the Toyota? Well, we drive two of them, quite happily I might add, at the moment.

How does that relate to photography?

My main client base is in the Toyota category right now. I have a few in the Ferrari category and a even few in the Yugo category.

The Yugo folks tend to be the ones who scrape everything they can to come to the same group events as the Toyota folks do, but would never dream of paying my private sitting rates. The catch for me is, I'm there anyway so I'm not out anything (much) by shooting them too.

I have one "Yugo client" who routinely buys about $15 worth of prints from me from each event. Over the course of a year, she's spent about $300. No way I could live on income from this client or even 10 just alike, but my gas and lunch is paid for.

The Toyota folks expect quality, but not exclusivity. They are the bulk of my clientele.

The Ferrari folks expect quality, service and something extra special that they can't get from just any GWC (guy/gal with camera). They make up a small percentage of my clients, but a large percentage of my income.

[sk66]

Jim, I don't think the point is the customer....it's the seller.

If you are selling your Yugo clients the same product/service as your Ferrari clients for 1/3 the money, something is wrong....

And if you are not charging the Yugo clients because you are "there already", but you are charging everyone else, well that isn't "quite right" either....If you're "already there", then no-one should have to pay for that aspect., or everyone pays the same "percentage" of that aspect...

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by sk66

Jim, I don't think the point is the customer....it's the seller.

If you are selling your Yugo clients the same product/service as your Ferrari clients for 1/3 the money, something is wrong....

And if you are not charging the Yugo clients because you are "there already", but you are charging everyone else, well that isn't "quite right" either....If you're "already there", then no-one should have to pay for that aspect., or everyone pays the same "percentage" of that aspect...

True...........a lot of salesmen don't know how to sale a product. I don't sell cars, (didn't start that analogy), I sell pictures and everything steps it takes to make, process and sell that picture.