[Closed] Professional Portrait Photography = Blackmail

I'd find it soul destroying that some pompous arse thinks my time isn't worth a decent rate

Thing is, the public doesn't owe a photographer a living. If people don't think it's worth £200 for a set of photos, then it isn't. So the fool is the one trying to make a living selling something that simply isn't worth it. You can't simply shout at the public for not thinking portraits are worth the money.

But then, perhaps that speaks more of a crisis in art, than just in photography alone.

No, just that your exposure to people's hobby work is much greater than it ever has been.

150 years ago when every middle class young person was painting watercolours and knocking out piano tunes in the parlour most of them were shit too - but you never heard of them unless you were in their family, and they certainly weren't preserved for us to see.

"You can't simply shout at the public for not thinking portraits are worth the money."

But you have every right to shout at someone who doesn't understand the value of your time, simply because they are ignorant. Do you work for minimum wage?

But you have every right to shout at someone who doesn't understand the value of your time, simply because they are ignorant

But in this case their opinion of the value IS the value. It might take someone a year to craft a life sized realistic sculpture of Donald Trump, but I wouldn't pay them thirty grand for it regardless of the skill it took.

I don't want portrait photographs at any price. Should I be shouted at for this by portrait photographers? If someone else doens't want them for any price over £100, how is this different? The price a key factor in the value decision customers make.

But you have every right to shout at someone who doesn't understand the value of your time, simply because they are ignorant. Do you work for minimum wage?

Depends, if your time is really worth what you think it is, why are you shouting at anyone? You'd be busy earning what you think you're worth. If you're not and having to shout at people, then you're evidently not worth what you think you are......

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something. It's one thing to say [i]"I don't want that, no thank you"[/i] and [i]"I could easily do that because I own the tools"[/i].

I'd say nearly every artist (or person in creative industries) has had some **** tell them what their work was worth and/or how they could do it.

My most hilarious/depressing was an ad pitch with an old toff who used to be high up in a London ad agency and had bought a Belfast based agency as a pet project for his son Sean (who we hadn't met). We developed character designs and storyboarded the ad out to the old guy's spec. The target style/quality benchmark was Toy Story 2.

So Sean arrives an hour late (on a Sunday) in his Boxster (top down, oakleys/scarf/drving gloves) and silently peruses the work. Asks how much it will cost.

We tell him the price and he coughs, spits and guffaws.
[i][b]
"How can you justify that price when all you do is download these drawings into the computer and the computer will animated them for you!?"[/b][/i]

Watching my colleague go purple as he stifled his rage is a memory that I'll take to my grave.

My job pays because people need the work done. How much it pays depends on how many other people have the same skill.

I could easily do that because I own the tools

Or - I could easily do something *good enough* for free because I own the tools.

Quite a few people on here set up their own home IT infrastructure. I don't complain about them not spending £1500 a day on IT consultancy do I?

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something.

If you have to do that, you're in the wrong business and pissing in the wind...

A timely thread - had an email from a client this morning who is "very disappointed" that he's not getting a free set of full sized downloads for his £40 session fee.

Everything included is very clearly set out on the website and printed gift voucher. He bought the session himself ffs.

footflaps

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something.

If you have to do that, you're in the wrong business and pissing in the wind...

Quite a difference between doing it to prospective clients and rebuffing some drivel on a forum.

molgrips

I could easily do that because I own the tools

Or - I could easily do something *good enough* for free because I own the tools.

We can't see the portrait photographers work, nor can we see the op's work to gauge whether this is laughable nonsense or true. At one end of the spectrum the op might be a gifted amateur and the pro might be a cack handed charlatan. On the other hand the op might be cack handed and deluded and the photographer in question might be a master of the craft.

I could easily race off shore powerboats if I owned one. How well I would do is another question.

He can try and educate as to the skill and effort involved in creating something.

If you have to do that, you're in the wrong business and pissing in the wind...

not really, sometimes i still have to educate clients as to why something costs £x, has to be done a certain way or it’s worth spending on other aspects of the job (proper models/locations/backgrounds/set builds etc)

99% of the time they see the value of that in the images produced or trust my judgment because my work shows i’m not bullshitting them and have delivered on many previous jobs.

that said a high street photographer is going to have to show value by producing quality, not a mottled brown background with a grimacing group photo chavs in their sunday best.

i have a phrase i borrowed from somewhere “cost is only a factor in the absence of value”
only had to use it a couple of times 🙂

"No, just that your exposure to people's hobby work is much greater than it ever has been.

150 years ago when every middle class young person was painting watercolours and knocking out piano tunes in the parlour most of them were shit too - but you never heard of them unless you were in their family, and they certainly weren't preserved for us to see."

Good point. However, learning to paint or play the piano requires a fair bit more personal application than pressing the button on a smartphone. As does learning about studio lighting, etc. What saddens me, is that those curating often appear to have very little idea about what actual photography entails, and choose to exhibit based on the notion of style over substance.

"I don't want portrait photographs at any price. Should I be shouted at for this by portrait photographers? If someone else doens't want them for any price over £100, how is this different? The price a key factor in the value decision customers make."

So by your logic, if I decide I don't want to pay a bricklayer/plumber/IT consultant what they charge, I shouldn't have to? Just pay them minimum wage then, yeah?

"Depends, if your time is really worth what you think it is, why are you shouting at anyone? You'd be busy earning what you think you're worth. If you're not and having to shout at people, then you're evidently not worth what you think you are......"

So the plumber/bricklayer etc can't shout at me if I tell them I'm only giving them £50 for their work? Excellent. Any future work I need done will be so much cheaper. 😀

What saddens me, is that those curating often appear to have very little idea about what actual photography entails, and choose to exhibit based on the notion of style over substance.

Why should it sadden you? It's always going to be the case, and so it should be. If everyone was brilliant no-one would be. My point was that in any endeavour, most people could do it, some can do it well and very few can do it brilliantly. No need to get sad about it any more than the fact I'm shit at tennis 🙂

So by your logic, if I decide I don't want to pay a bricklayer/plumber/IT consultant what they charge, I shouldn't have to? Just pay them minimum wage then, yeah?

No, because those are necessary purchases and have minimum standards. Very different situation. If I put a snap on my wall, that I like, it's of zero consequence; but heating needs to function and be done to spec.

However I wouldn't expect to pay a plumber triple because he described himself as artisan and made the pipes look lovely 🙂 But someone might. If you think there's a market then fine, but don't whinge if you don't get much work.

sometimes i still have to educate clients as to why something costs £x

Slightly different for you though MrSmith - your clients might be oblivious to how their products need to be displayed. The quality of your shots has consequence, like the plumber's work. And the client might not be aware of that.

If everyone was brilliant no-one would be.

A picture is worth a 1000 words etc.....

[img] [/img]

Basically, half of professional photographers are below average (for professional photography) 🙂

Quite a few people on here set up their own home IT infrastructure. I don't complain about them not spending £1500 a day on IT consultancy do I?

That's possibly a better analogy than you think.

A home network can be thrown together and probably work, I can happily punch down a Krone point with the best of them. It's a vastly different prospect to designing and building an enterprise-grade LAN / WAN infrastructure. For the latter, I'd be looking at getting in a professional designer and a structured cabling engineer who knows how to use a Fluke tester.

Or to put it another way, do you want a professional portrait, or do you want a couple of .jpg selfies you can stick on Facebook? If it's the latter then stick your dSLR in Auto and fill your boots.

No, because those are necessary purchases and have minimum standards. Very different situation. If I put a snap on my wall, that I like, it's of zero consequence; but heating needs to function and be done to spec.

I think this may be a straw man. What relevance does it have whether it's essential or a luxury? Do you throw standards out of the window for luxury purchases? Arguably the reverse may even be true; would you agonise more over your next model of bike or your next model of boiler?

To you (and me TBH), having a family portrait on the wall isn't overly high on the priorities list, but for others it might well be massively important. Reckon the Beckhams have photos of little Romeo and whatever the other one is called, S****horpe or something, hanging on the wall taken by one of their mates who thinks he can take good photos because he has a dSLR and read a photography magazine once?

Why spend several grand on a bike when you can get one from ASDA for £100? Why bother with an AV system when you can play music on your phone?

It boils down to this: You're paying a premium product. If you don't [i]want[/i] a premium product that's perfectly fine, stick to your hobbyist options for something that's arguably "almost" as good.

For example, I have any number of friends with expensive cameras, some of whom take simply incredible photos that as a hobbyist myself I can only dream of being good enough to take. I've got one of them on the wall in our bedroom (a print, not a friend). But when I got married last year, we hired a professional photographer.

That's possibly a better analogy than you think.

not if you are a photographer in a thread about photography. i have no idea what any of that means. 😆

What relevance does it have whether it's essential or a luxury?

No, not essential or luxury - essential or optional.

The [i]only[/i] criteria on which to assess a photograph is personal enjoyment. If you like it, or you don't, it makes no difference. That is an internal criterion because you decide for yourself and are the only assessor.

Something like plumbing or building has external criteria - either the laws of the land or the laws of physics. You might think your new extension looks great, but it's not up to you whether or not it stays up - it's up to gravity. External criterion.

Something like plumbing or building has external criteria - either the laws of the land or the laws of physics. You might think your new extension looks great, but it's not up to you whether or not it stays up - it's up to gravity. External criterion.

Yep, but you/I/cougar/whoever still get to decide whether to just let the builder get on with building a generic flat roofed red brick extension (as drawn by someone who owns a ruler and a piece of paper. Or hire an architect (and maybe even a project manager) and get it done well.

Builder = mate with camera = something to fill a gap on the wall

Architect = photographer = something you want to look at on the wall

That said, for the kind of identikit family portraits we're actually taking about, the builder probably could do them on his cameraphone.

"A timely thread - had an email from a client this morning who is "very disappointed" that he's not getting a free set of full sized downloads for his £40 session fee.
Everything included is very clearly set out on the website and printed gift voucher. He bought the session himself ffs."

So this business model doesn't work for the photographer either.

"Why should it sadden you? "

Because there are genuinely talented people out there, not getting a look in, because curators/gallery owners are driven by increasingly commercial demands, and the actual quality of work viewable is falling, in my opinion. Why bother showing the work of someone who's spent loads travelling to get some amazing photographs, then thousands having them printed up to the best possible standards, for example, when you can get someone who's done a few Instagrammed snaps with an iPhone for less money? Well, a bit more complicated than that, but it's the end of the day and I can't be bothered going into it too much.

As for a profession; it's increasingly more difficult to make a living out of photography, precisely because of attitudes like yours. I fully accept that exactly the same was felt by those painting in oils, when photography emerged as a more accessible art form, and I accept that times change. But to devalue professional photography as 'unnecessary' is insulting to photographers. Maybe you'll think of that, the next time you do a Google image search.

I'll risk all and throw my hat into the ring

One moment of dawning for me was to realise that for a professional photographer shooting a Wedding, Portraits or event the real trick is not about getting the best shot. Its about getting it all done to a good standard. I shot a wedding this summer. I got some good shots. But where the pros I know would have done a better shop is in depth and breadth. Every group shot looking top notch, not just some etc.

I'll risk asking Clodhopper an opinion on one of my shots. It is massively "Photo-shopped". Is this the sort of thing that you are bemoaning? I'm sure you won't hold back telling me what is wrong with it you don't like it and that is fine

[url= https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8107/8503771535_bd17caec68_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8107/8503771535_bd17caec68_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/dXs41B ]Devon (2 of 2)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/ ]John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/ ]My photos in order of date added[/url]

[url= http://www.flickriver.com/photos/john_clinch/popular-interesting/ ]My photos ranked by flikr activity[/url]

"Is this the sort of thing that you are bemoaning?"

No. Because it looks like you had some sort of idea how you wanted the image to look, from when you took the picture, to the final version. I have absolutely no problem with using Photoshop in this way. I have images that have been extensively manipulated. But then, I used to do similar with film and printing.

No, it's shit like this:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

IE, 'let's take a mundane, not particularly good photo, and try to turn it into something amazing using an algorithm created by someone else, with no real understanding of how it works, then post it on Facebook and wait for sycophantic comments from our friends'.

And this:

[img] [/img]

And more criminally, hideous nastiness like this:

[img] [/img]

'Wow; we moved the sliders up to max, and you won't believe what happened next!'

Urrgh.

Oversaturated HDR shots are like black websites. Everyone's allowed to do [i]one[/i].

As for a profession; it's increasingly more difficult to make a living out of photography, precisely because of attitudes like yours.

Highly debatable that it's his attitude at fault. As far as I can see most 'professionals' just aren't that good (compared with the average amateur) and there is only a small market for excellence.

Basically supply exceeds demand.

Clodhopper

We agree

And yes one of the reasons I'm proud of that shot is the sky had been like that, over baggy point, almost all day. I then had the idea of what to do and it worked. As you say standing looking to final image

Your examples are just terrible...

A few months back I paid £750 for a 1:1 tutorial day with a professional landscape photographer. To some, that's an awful lot of money, and to some extent it was to me too. However, it's also much less than a decent lens, and over 16 hours amounted to not that much of an hourly rate for him after you take his costs into consideration. It also included a A1 archival print of my preferred image either from my portfolio or the day.

Relevance to the present discussion: if I'd done this six years ago, and waited longer to upgrade from my 450D to my 5D, that would have been a much better use of my money to improve my photography. That's the effect one long day of a top professional's time can have. Professionals appear to cost a lot because they are often worth it. Value and cost aren't synonyms. My camera cost me a lot of money, the tutorial was very good value given the improvement in my technique and editing finesse afterwards.

But to devalue professional photography as 'unnecessary' is insulting to photographers

Noooo nonono, you have me all wrong. I am very much in favour of photography as an art form practised by highly talented artists. But that is art, and is an entirely different thing from taking studio photos of a family of punters.

The problem there is that someone's business model is based on selling things to customers who aren't prepared to pay enough to keep the photographer in business. Maybe it's because the same customer can get snaps when out and about, maybe not.

Back in the day, such things were an important documentary part of family life - if it weren't for the studio portraits you'd have no photographic record. But now - not so much.

As far as I can see most 'professionals' just aren't that good (compared with the average amateur) and there is only a small market for excellence.

This.

An amateur has the time to get the perfect shot whereas a pro has to get a vast number of satisfactory shots in the minimum time and market them.

Completely different skills.

I have a friend who is a full time pro Photographer and one of his many small income streams is lecturing to camera clubs. He shows them his latest work rather than his career best and his audiences are openly critical of some of it. They're right, their best work is better because they can spend days on end getting the perfect shot. But his average work that he's capable of churning out very quickly day in day out is almost all of saleable quality and he has the contacts to sell enough of it to live. Different skill to spending 3 weeks on perfection.

Another point he often makes is at Weddings (he's not a wedding photographer, but he reckons you have to do a bit of everything) and at talks to Photography Clubs and Lessons he gives his kit is never the best compared to the best of the others. Amateurs can buy as much kit as they can afford of the best quality with a limitless budget. Every bit of kit he buys has to earn its living if he spent 20k on a lense that comes right off his bottom line which is out of the question.

I have another friend who installs kitchens. I visited his place once and the finish of his kitchen was outstanding. He noticed I was impressed and said "I wish I had time to do work of this standard for my customers."

Professional means you can make a living at something and for Photographers and Kitchen installers than means selling a vast amount of 'good enough' not a tiny amount of 'excellence'.

I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions but even so.

None of this is really relevant to my original point which is the business model of "Small price up front, then sell four or five shots for £XXX & delete the rest" strikes me as a sh1t business model and p1sses both sides off whereas "Pay £XXX and you get any good output that's produced and that doesn't need much post production" *might* lead to a higher income for the photographer and much happier customers. Someone higher up the thread made the point that the customer then has to take the risk if all the output is crap which might be the sticking point.

So this business model doesn't work for the photographer either.

Actually, it mostly does OOB. It gives an "in" to a range of excellent (and less excellent) photographers without a massive initial investment to scare off clients.

High Street companies like Venture *did* used to pretty much blackmail clients after sessions but the average client spend with low / no pressure sales is more than enough to keep me going (far fewer overheads, one man band, no expensive studio etc).

Still get the odd cheapskate but so long as everything is made competely clear before a session, it's rarely an issue.

Actually, it mostly does OOB. It gives an "in" to a range of excellent (and less excellent) photographers without a massive initial investment to scare off clients.

Yeah, in spite of my ranting I'm beginning to appreciate it does get people in. It's all very well for me to say that I would be far happier paying up-front for all the output, but the reality is we wouldn't even done the session if we hadn't been given it as a present and felt obliged to go. (But that's a big source of my annoyance: Someone has basically 'given' us 25pc of a £200 present and we're left to pay the rest. We've received a gift of "minus £150".)

At least I know what to give to people I hate in future. 😀

Outofbreath

I think professional photographers are obliged to keep the orginals for 25 years. So you can have a cooling off period before you buy them

This is an example of a family portrait done by someone I know. You may like the style, you may not, but I don't think many "amateurs" would have been able to make such an image.

[img] [/img]

Did a group one with the wifes family. All agrees to chip in. Her brothers kid was a funny looking lad, and when we got the photos her brother decided he didn't want any (of his own family!) leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall.
Been roped into a family holiday with them too. It's near Afan. Needless to say, I'm taking the bike.

I don't think many "amateurs" would have been able to make such an image.

They can now!

[quote=DrJ ]This is an example of a family portrait done by someone I know. You may like the style, you may not, but I don't think many "amateurs" would have been able to make such an image.

Maybe not - but I could produce a few shots I've taken which are decently exposed, focused and framed which a professional photographer wouldn't have been able to take because they weren't there. I know which I prefer having - but then I'm with molgrips on the issue of studio photos, so may not be the best person to judge. I suppose it depends what the reason for having photos is - I was struck by this comment on the previous page:

[quote=clodhopper ]What we are left with is 'imaging technicians', not 'photographers'. People who can produce an acceptable image that fulfils a brief, rather than being able to produce anything truly unique, or of significant artistic merit. Which is fine if all you need to do is illustrate an article, but not so great in terms of the evolution of photography as an art form.

I'm more interested in having memories than worrying about how arty the photo is.

Having said that I do "admire" that particular pic - I think I've got the right word there, I don't particularly like it, but I get the idea behind it. Oh, and I'm also betting that most "studio" photos aren't of that sort of quality.

Though clodhopper may have converted me with his examples - those truly are rubbish, even I can appreciate that, and if that's what you're dissing then I agree with you.

You're forgetting about Photoshop. Any Tom, Dick or Harriette can take a photo on their megapixel camera, throw the RAW file through Photoshop and bosh! They've got a photo that's comparable to a pro.

Most Tom, Dick or Harriettes won't own (rent) photoshop as it's an industry standard platform with the price to match. And if they do get a good pic out of it I would say it's more luck then judgement in most cases.

Good tools help an artist, they don't make an artist.

There are some crap pros too. And actually a good pro's strength will be working with people as much as technical skills. We work regularly alongside (with video) some decent photographers (and I mean signed to big brands) - their overwhelming skill is getting the best from their subjects and clients. That's where your amateur comes undone.

High street portraiture is hardly the benchmark really.

"their overwhelming skill is getting the best from their subjects and clients"

This.

I really think that people in this thread have a pretty poor understanding of what skills pros bring to the table. It's not technical, it's ideas and getting the subjects enthused.

Of course, an amateur doesn't have to bother with either of those since he's not confined to a studio and getting shots of people doing something interesting that they love covers both those bases in spades.

There are some crap pros too. And actually a good pro's strength will be working with people as much as technical skills. We work regularly alongside (with video) some decent photographers (and I mean signed to big brands) - their overwhelming skill is getting the best from their subjects and clients. That's where your amateur comes undone.

You're forgetting about Photoshop. Any Tom, Dick or Harriette can take a photo on their megapixel camera, throw the RAW file through Photoshop and bosh! They've got a photo that's comparable to a pro.

That's just rubbish.

That's just rubbish.

[quote=captainsasquatch ]Well that's knackered the landscape and sport photographer in one fell swoop.

Yeah, well all they need is the right kit and technical capability.

OP, as someone who's trying to set up their own photography business, I would never adopt the model of your photographer. Mine would be/is: 1-2hrs at £40-60, and I'll deliver around 4-8 full-res digital images to you. If you want them printed, that can be arranged for additional (£10 a pop). Something like that anyway.

And if you want to see what an amateur can do with a DSLR and Lightroom, try me at: http://kitcarruthersphotography.com/

Well that's knackered the landscape and sport photographer in one fell swoop

I thought we were discussing taking pictures of people?

Besides subjects can be landscapes, clearly.

With modern printing technology it isn't that hard to print your own photos from jpegs.

I printed out our own wedding photos. I used a Canon Pro-100 printer and quality papers, cost me about £50 of ink and £70 paper and £30 for a photo album rather than £650 that the professional printers wanted, so saved me about £500. The final quality was really very good I just needed to load in the paper colour profiles and do a couple of test prints to dial the settings in just right.

It is virtually impossible to replicate good studio shots without a studio, the lighting setup is more important than the camera or the lens.

I also tend to think that studio type photographers generally seem to go towards a high price/low hit rate business model where they might be better with a moderate price/good hit rate business model. Yes there is some effort in post processing too, but when correctly set-up and practised in the art it doesn't take long, again hardware/software advances have sped things up.

As a slight aside and with reference to the recent '11 things that annoy events organisers' article I think it is the same for sports photographers, I think they might make more money and have happier customers if they lowered the prices quite a bit and get a higher hit rate. I also think the photos tend to be a bit boring, I'd prefer riskier tracking shots which might be technically soft but make the subject look more athletically impressive.

e.g. my 1st attempt at sports photography
[img] [/img]

my 2nd attempt
[img] [/img]

Guess which one was running faster 😉

If I did a third attempt then I want to try the angle of the first one with the technique of the 2nd one.