Spotty Dotty wrote:
But you are so so so so independently wealthy!!!    I like you!

How do you go from "I don't shoot to make a living" to "I am independently wealthy?" I've never claimed to be independently wealthy. I merely say that I don't need to make a living at photography. There are scores of photographers here on MM in the very same boat, and we all seem to be derided by those who do make a living with photography as some kind of evil bastards, taking food out of the commercial shooter's mouth.

PS: I side with Snoopy, who said, "Cats are the crabgrass in the lawn of life." :-)

Legacys 7 wrote:
The biggest problem in the photography business is the lack of marketing sense. There are two good books out there that I recommend. Well actually 3.

And they are?

Ronnie Adar wrote:

And they are?

the links are posted on page 2.

Legacys 7 wrote:

the links are posted on page 2.

thanks...

Christopher Ambler wrote:

How do you go from "I don't shoot to make a living" to "I am independently wealthy?" I've never claimed to be independently wealthy. I merely say that I don't need to make a living at photography. There are scores of photographers here on MM in the very same boat, and we all seem to be derided by those who do make a living with photography as some kind of evil bastards, taking food out of the commercial shooter's mouth.

PS: I side with Snoopy, who said, "Cats are the crabgrass in the lawn of life." :-)

From your Bio maybe?
"as I'm one of those idiots who got lucky during the dot-com boom."

And she says she liked you.

Now, about that misplaced angst...

Laurence Moan wrote:
From your Bio maybe?
"as I'm one of those idiots who got lucky during the dot-com boom."

And she says she liked you.

Now, about that misplaced angst...

Points, in order: Getting lucky doesn't necessarily equate to wealth. "She" is a fake account for someone's cat. I dumped my angst in the 80's when I stopped being emo.

And I still don't like cats.

Brooks Ayola wrote:

Never said that at all. I don't expect anything from a free market, but why should that discourage me from making my feelings about it known? You came here and said that "Anyone who gets upset and thinks that I'm hurting their market has bigger problems." What might those be? Personal issues? Medical issues? There's nothing wrong in being upset when your competition lowballs. There's nothing I can do about it other than show my disrespect for them. They are free to do it no matter what I say and I've never claimed otherwise.

This is why I have no interest in pursuing "L.A. clients".  People here undercut you.  Consequently, these "L.A. clients" expect everyone - even photographers - to work for them for free.  Unless, of course, you're from New York or some other part of the world.  Art buyers in L.A. have little or no respect for so-called "L.A. photographers" - and that's partly the fault of . . . "L.A. photographers": undercutting each other or giving it away for free*. 

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

*I myself have been guilty of that, so my hands aren't entirely clean.

Sean Armenta wrote:
if you are at a level much higher than everyone else involved, stop it, you need to get paid cause you are giving your work away.

Now, I have to ask. What's your advice for getting models to realize this? I got a ton of responses to my LA travel notice, and a bunch from these "up and coming" girls w/ really crappy photos in their port. (think camera phone) They were expecting TFCD, or in some cases, for ME to pay THEM. It was kinda frustrating, but no biggie because I'm not gonna let the fun be taken out of this for me.

It's good to know my thoughts have been confirmed by another photographer. I always felt that whoever can improve the other should get paid. I would have no problems paying a model like Alicia: https://modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=374276 because she would improve my port and get me more attention. Whereas someone just starting out should at least make me and offer.

Totally agree about TFCD, if you're on the same level, and the photos would be mutually beneficial, that's the way to go.

Sean Armenta wrote:
when to shoot for free and when to get paid

I thought I read,

"when to shoot for free and when to get laid"

Dan Howell wrote:
You had me until you said, 'NEVER compete on price or rate.'  This is simply not in step with the reality of the day to day industry. 

Estimates and triple-bid projects are standard.  The economic climate has a direct impact on the industry.  To ignor bacis business principles such as competition is like a race car driver ignoring the cars around him.  Unless or until you are taking truely original photographs can you estimate projects with inflexibility in regards to price.  Economics are not the only consideration, but they certainly can steer the results of the creative decisions.

Sometimes it is actually a releif to work on editorial projects that have standard, predetermined rate structures.  That is not to say that one should devalue their work.  Rather it would be smarter to realize and accept that there are many talented photographers out there (especially outside of the web circles) and that this is a business (for some) which follows patterns familiar to other businesses.

let's put it this way dan -- what you charge for a job has no bearing on what i would charge for the same job.  simply because i am not competing with you on price.  i charge what i charge based on what it costs for me to stay in business regardless of what my competitors charge.  i charge what the client needs to pay in order for me to produce the work they need.

i think a lot of photographers are too concerned with the "going market rate etc" when in fact, there is no going market rate.  there is no such thing as standardization in our industry period.  this is both a problem and a good thing, and i'm sure you can see why.

Madcrow Studios wrote:
My "Official" response to this bit of necromancy: https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=158779

and yet again, you reply without truly reading or understanding what the post was about.

how is what i said any sort of negative attack towards hobbyists.  this thread was for those who were wanting to make money out of photography, not shoot as a hobby.

eyelight wrote:
I love it when artists that I admire share their knowledge and experience with those of us that can benefit from it...  Thank you Sean...

Took the words right off of my fingers *translated through keys*

This is the best info i could get right now, structuring my services

Sean Armenta wrote:
...i charge what i charge based on what it costs for me to stay in business regardless of what my competitors charge.  i charge what the client needs to pay in order for me to produce the work they need...

I hope you will take a minute to re-examine your statement because it appears to me that you are charging jobs based on your needs not the value of the project.  By the logic of your statement, you would charge the same for an editorial day as you would for a national ad that takes the same time and production expenses.  That is simply not true to how the industry works.  While costs of production (and photographer's overhead) do factor into the equation, your statement is not a reflection of how the majority of the industry works. 

While your post contained useful information about some aspects of pricing and value, a statment like the one above does not provide useful information to a serious issue.  You are free to operate your business as you like, but the majority of professionals I know do not operate in a bubble.