[Closed] Professional Portrait Photography = Blackmail

With all due respect, those are 2 good arguments for paying pro sports photographers 🙂

For event photography in the UK bike scene I think a lot of the change and pricing has come from the work Seb did on Roots and Rain
https://www.rootsandrain.com/
It swaps a lot of the work out and means that the photo's get delivered to you rather than trawling for them and a higher throughput/lower price works out as well for the photographers. 4-6 quid for a pic sounds resonable to me.

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.

and here comes the whole point, component pricing means the market changes. If the photographer is banking on selling the book/album to you after they may put the rate down for taking the pics - ie one subsidides the other. Having seen the time it takes to put together a book/album etc. it does cost time (which people seem to think comes free)
If all you want are the jpegs then expect to pay more in future and expect some photographers to refuse as they don't want somebody messing up thier work which is their reputation.

On sports... one of thise images is from the STW feature on Ramage
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
https://flic.kr/p/z1VRSE
(I think I might have been sat very close at that point 🙂 )
The pro one is just better, part of that is using the right lens and knowing a lot more about light etc. On top of that I reckon his will look much better as a full page than mine ever could.

I reckon when I tried my hand at DH Stuff I was getting about 1 in 10-15 descent shots that could be classed as a maybe buy if that was the only one, where as the pro's are shooting a much better ratio.

As photography is art, (yes, even journalists consider themselves artists) [img] [/img] and art is purely subjective. A discussion regarding what is good and what is not, is completely pointless. Unless you think you're going to change someone's mind? Personally, why bother. I know what art is and don't care if the rest of you disagree. 😉

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.

Hope that goes well for you. If you're interested in making cash out of photography there might be a few good tips here:

http://theactivephotographer.com/2015/10/episode-186-the-need-to-diversify/

art is purely subjective. A discussion regarding what is good and what is not, is completely pointless.

Maybe, but to say that the "sports" photos above are as "good" as, say, these:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/oct/03/bodybuilding-championship-in-nepal-in-pictures
makes no sense.

(sorry to pick on you twisty)

Maybe, but to say that the "sports" photos above are as "good" as, say, these:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/oct/03/bodybuilding-championship-in-nepal-in-pictures
makes no sense.

Since the debate has morphed into Pro Verses amateur I think we need to have a definition of 'Pro'.

Does it mean full time pro? Does it mean 'qualified'? Does it mean currently working?

I've sold three images, I'm deffo not a pro. I have a friend who did fine art photography at Uni and has taken some outstanding shots yet has never sold an image, is he an Amateur?

It's quite hard to pin down.

"I'd say 3 maybe 4 of those are quality pics, the rest are a bit pah! And I hope the Grauniad didn't pay too much for them."

...and we have no idea if they were taken by a pro or not.

I'd say 3 maybe 4 of those are quality pics, the rest are a bit pah! And I hope the Grauniad didn't pay too much for them.

They tell a story and convey the mood of the event very well, in addition to being a decent mixture of technical proficiency and abstract. At least they did to me.

Since the debate has morphed into Pro Verses amateur I think we need to have a definition of 'Pro'.

Does it mean full time pro? Does it mean 'qualified'? Does it mean currently working?

As an ex wedding photographer I have been following this thread for the last couple of days.
Its full of the same old arguments, give a decent camera to an armature and they will eventually capture a decent image. Send them to a wedding and you will have a very unhappy bride. Where the "pro" comes in is that they are able to capture consistently good images in ever changing conditions during a one off event. There are no second chances, you cannot ask the happy couple to redo their vows because you missed the "Kiss" shot.

As for cost, a typical wedding could be an 8 - 10 hour shoot, at least the same amount of post processing time, plus additional work on albums. Add to that three meetings, travel costs, equipment costs and insurance and it all adds up to a lot of money. Its almost impossible to make a living out of wedding photography alone. You need to be booked for 52 weekends a year just to make ends meat.

Must be nice to have your weekends back 🙄

You need to be booked for 52 weekends a year just to make ends meat.

Considered a career change as a sausage maker?

This sounds like the arguments I have when people send me files for a 36 page booklet - all done in Word, and at US Letter size - then moan when I have to tell them it all needs re-setting! 😀

For a wedding most people will need somebody who can deliver what people have come to expect. Certain standard groups and poses, all well lit and exposed despite the white dress, dark suit problems etc. A lot of money has been invested and there is no chance of a rerun, at least not with the same cast.

Family photos are a different matter. They are not expected - most people these days don't go to a professional to get photos of the wife and kids and the norm is for snapshots of whatever quality and aesthetics to grace the family "album".

But what is getting the OP's goat is the way a photographer sells a "session" without any photos - or maybe a small set is included - and then uses the "sweets at the checkout" technique to get the gift recipient to cough up more. Hence the "blackmail".

"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."

The problem is that the customer doesn't understand why the photographer needs to charge so much. Because of attitudes like yours, 'oh I'm not into that kind of thing so I don't value it', and the OP's 'anyone with a camera can do it'. IE, it's a profession that has been devalued by increased accessibility.

Some years ago, I was talking to a guy who was a professional graphic artist, who specialised in producing those amazing cutaway images, such as this:

[img] [/img]

Such images required tremendous skill and talent, and a master of art media. They were all done with pen and paint etc! Then along came computer software which enabled artists to do exactly the same, yet have far greater flexibility and scope, yet still required the same skill and talent, not to mention mastery of the software and technology. The guy had remortgaged his house, in order to pay for a very expensive computer system to enable him to do so, and even so, was looking at at least 2 or 3 years learning the new craft, to be able to continue doing his job. I have no idea how he got on, I do hope he succeeded.

Point I'm trying to make, is that there's a hell of a lot more to a craft trade, than simply operating equipment.

give a decent camera to an [b]armature[/b] and they will eventually [s]capture a decent image.[/s] generate electricity

🙂

There are no second chances, you cannot ask the happy couple to redo their vows because you missed the "Kiss" shot.

Apparently it's not unheard of to go back and re-stage some of the shots....

OK, how about this.

You pay several £xxx`s upfront for a shoot which includes a set of digital or printed files.
You go to the shoot, pay your money, and when the shots come back you dont like them/they are poor quality.

OR

You pay a minimal amount for a shoot, and then pay for the shots you want after you have seen them.

As long as the costs are agreed upfront i would rather go with option two.

The problem is that the customer doesn't understand why the photographer needs to charge so much. Because of attitudes like yours, 'oh I'm not into that kind of thing so I don't value it', and the OP's 'anyone with a camera can do it'. IE, it's a profession that has been devalued by increased accessibility.

I'm not saying there's no skill in it. I've acknowledged that. The issue is that it costs too much for the outcome, for most people, as we've discussed.

You can't make people think it's worth it. Well, you can, it's called advertising, but you have to do better than simply berating them 🙂

If a customer doens't want what you're selling, it's not THEIR fault, it's yours.

"But what is getting the OP's goat is the way a photographer sells a "session" without any photos - or maybe a small set is included - and then uses the "sweets at the checkout" technique to get the gift recipient to cough up more. Hence the "blackmail"."

In a nutshell.

"Hence the "blackmail"

But it's not 'blackmail' at all, this is the bit several people on this thread find quite insulting. It's the ignorance of how the photographer works.

If you get a tradesman round to do some work at you house, and they need to do some investigative work in order to assess what needs to be done, then you'd expect to pay them for that time. When they then quote you for the 'actual' work, you wouldn't consider it 'blackmail', would you? They've already come round to your house, and spent time they couldn't have elsewhere. Same with the photographer having people in the studio and taking the pictures. That might only take an hour or so, but it's an hour they can't spend doing something else to make money. So £50 for that isn't a great deal. And neither is the extra £150 for the prints. Because that's extra time spent in post production, printing etc. Then there's all the overheads of running a studio. And I doubt the average high st studio has every hour of the day booked up solid, all week long. Especially when less and less people value such work. So they have to make money when they can; it's possible they only get one or two photoshoot jobs a day. £400 a day before any expenses isn't much at all.

"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."

So, you don't need to make a living then?

"But it's not 'blackmail' at all"

I now understand the reasons for this pricing strategy and I can see it's a necessary evil. Maybe blackmail is too emotive a word and someone can suggest a better one. Nico summed it up IMHO.

outofbreath

"But what is getting the OP's goat is the way a photographer sells a "session" without any photos - or maybe a small set is included - and then uses the "sweets at the checkout" technique to get the gift recipient to cough up more. Hence the "blackmail"."

In a nutshell.

He wants to haggle with the photographer, before anything is done

I think what's required is up front negotiation before the emotive pics even exist

but this is obviously something the photographer wants to avoid. Imagine the mental drain and the waste of time, haggling over something that doesn't exist yet with someone who can't evisage what it is they are haggling over.

There are countless service industries where the provider will try to "add value" or upsell to the customer, or run a loss leader. The photographer is just doing the same.

Oh, you want your car washed? Ok. How about a quick wax and polish too while your here?

If a customer doens't want what you're selling, it's not THEIR fault, it's yours.

I don't think anyone is saying it's the customer's fault for not wanting what is offered for sale at the price quoted. That's obviously the customer's prerogative. My reading (could be wrong) is that the customer is nevertheless unreasonable to say that the work SHOULD be cheaper, because ... umm ... because.

"He wants to haggle with the photographer, before anything is done"

I didn't want anything done at all.

In the unlikely event that I did want studio Photos then that is exactly the approach I'd want - the same as if I was dealing with a commercial photographer.

The end result would be the photographer would make a bit more cash and offset the risk of none of the pics being good 'cos I'm so ugly and I'd leave happy.

I now fully understand the flaw in that model from the Photographer's POV.

I'm not really sure what there is to discuss now, I think we all understand what's happening.

If a customer doens't want what you're selling, it's not THEIR fault, it's yours.

Wrong. If a customer doesn't want what I'm selling (at the price point I have set), then they're just not my customer. Simples. There are hundreds of mums-with-a-camera (yes, these are a thing - MWACs) in parks all over the country, every, single weekend, giving away the farm for a tiny fee. Their clients are not my clients.

There are wedding photographers charging eight times what I do - their clients aren't my clients either. There's a level for everyone - pick the one you want.

"Wrong. If a customer doesn't want what I'm selling (at the price point I have set), then they're just not my customer. Simples"

Except for people who get given cheap "session" vouchers, who don't want to be a customer, but find themselves morally obliged to be.

"I now fully understand the flaw in that model from the Photographer's POV."

There isn't really a 'flaw'. By your own admission, you didn't want any pictures done. you went, sat for the photos, then didn't want to spend any more money. The photographer has their £50, they don't need to do any more work for you, you don't need to buy any pictures from them. Everyone's happy.

"In the unlikely event that I did want studio Photos then that is exactly the approach I'd want - the same as if I was dealing with a commercial photographer."

If you approached the vast majority of photographers and tried to haggle the price, they'd probably tell you to get lost. I would.

"I think we all understand what's happening."

I don't think [i]you[/i] do.

outofbreath

I didn't want anything done at all.

outofbreath

Except for people who get given cheap "session" vouchers, who don't want to be a customer, but find themselves morally obliged to be.

Morally obliged? That's quite a voucher when it can force you to do things against your will.

"Since the debate has morphed into Pro Verses amateur I think we need to have a definition of 'Pro'.

Does it mean full time pro? Does it mean 'qualified'? Does it mean currently working?"

As above, I'd say it's probably someone who earns a significant proportion of their income, from photography.

I'm not a 'professional'. I am selling more work, and getting an increasing number of commissions, but I'm not a 'professional'. I'm a passionate 'amateur' who earns a few quid now and then. I'll happily take a commission I find interesting, challenging and personally rewarding. As for the 'quality' of my work; I'm pretty sure I could, with a bit of organisation and planning, be a capable pro. I believe I have the talent, skills and ability to work as a professional photographer. I just don't want to (unless people want to pay me vast sums for my own pictures!).

I do know that there are 'professionals' out there, who do earn their living from photography, who aren't that great imo. That's by the by though. But generaly, most 'professionals' will be far more competent in their craft, than most 'amateurs'. Take the example of the 'sports' photography above; more than acceptable for a first attempt, but wouldn't cut it at 'professional' level. Footflaps' images are technically 'better', but not indicative of the 'quality' that international media agencies would demand (not to say that Footflaps couldn't do the job professionally though). But then, Footflaps was photographing a local hockey match, not a top sports event. So his photos are excellent in that context. More than adequate for small local newspaper etc.

Likewise, the local high st portrait service may well not be on a par with the likes of David Bailey, Irving Penn or Cindy Sherman, but then, the local garage isn't servicing F1 cars. And you won't be paying F1 money down at the local garage...

"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."

The problem is that the way they do this is by saying they'll charge one thing then trying to upsell massively. I've used good photographers that agree on a price, set up a nice scene and take an appropriate amount of time based on it, and heard from my wife of ones who do very generic shots of women with too much makeup on touched up to within an inch of being lifeless and sell the shoot as a "gift" where the receiver of the gift is pressured into buying more photos by deliberately taking ones that "don't count" for the original fee - e.g. "oh no you can't have that one, there's a finger in it and it's a head shot that was included in the gift".

I can't believe people think that the second type deserves to make a living from it.

Morally obliged? That's quite a voucher when it can force you to do things against your will.

If the voucher system doesn't put pressure on people to buy things they didn't really want it has no purpose. In which case stop selling them, they clearly don't increase sales, they just p1ss people off!

By your own admission, you didn't want any pictures done. you went, sat for the photos, then didn't want to spend any more money. The photographer has their £50, they don't need to do any more work for you, you don't need to buy any pictures from them. Everyone's happy.

Not really because I *do* feel obliged to fork out extra cash. However I won't be spending four figures on all of the output so even though I'm going to be paying a fortune out I'm still unhappy because there are a load of pics of my family which exist but I'll never have. It's utterly unsatisfactory for everyone, but I do accept without this business model I wouldn't have gone in the door so I guess it is necessary.

"Not really because I *do* feel obliged to fork out extra cash."

Why? Nobody's forcing you to buy any pictures.

"I do accept without this business model I wouldn't have gone in the door so I guess it is necessary."

So it's not 'blackmail' then?

"I can't believe people think that the second type deserves to make a living from it."

You are aware that you are being ripped off for a vast array of things you buy, aren't you?

Even by STW standards this is a bit bonkers - OP buys something he didn't want, and it's "the business model's fault".

Why? Nobody's forcing you to buy any pictures.

If this system doesn't put pressure on people to buy things they didn't really want it has no purpose.

Even by STW standards this is a bit bonkers - OP buys something he didn't want, and it's "the business model's fault".

Yes, if the voucher system doesn't put pressure on people to buy things they didn't really want it has no purpose.

I'm still unhappy because there are a load of pics of my family which exist but I'll never have

You're going to go ****ing mental when you find out about CCTV

😀

"I'm going to be paying a fortune"

So, tell us what you would think is a reasonable sum of money for a professional to do some family photos, and what you would expect for that sum.

So, tell us what you would think is a reasonable sum of money for a professional to do some family photos, and what you would expect for that sum.

Not really relevant to my point. My issue is not with the total cost.

So what on earth is your issue then? 😕

outofbreath
Not really relevant to my point. My issue is not with the total cost.

What if it was £3.00? Would that be an acceptable to price to relieve this photo hoarding wizard of the images which he had deceptively deprived your family of?

"So what on earth is your issue then?"

Have a read of the thread, it's been clearly spelled out.

"relieve this photo hoarding wizard of the images which he had deceptively deprived your family of?"

😀

"relieve this photo hoarding wizard of the images which he had deceptively deprived your family of?"

I suggest using a Baseball bat......

...the Police wouldn't need photofit images to catch me...