|
Forums >
General Industry >
Photographers and their rants about costs
Where costs come in for me is when a model wants to trade for portfolio work - I can't do it Studio: 35-50/hr (weekday / weekend) Hair 100 /day rate MUA 100/day rate Stylist 100/day rate I can't give that away. Even if the model wants to self style I can't afford to give away the studio time. if it's my project and I am getting something I value out of it I will bear some costs that are proportionate in my own estimation - this is nobody's problem but my own... And of course if a paying client is involved I will apportion costs and pay accordingly. You would never hear me rant, though, about my equipment costs etc, those are my responsibility alone. Oct 10 12 11:48 am Link ChiMo wrote: Michael Pandolfo wrote: You'll certainly get no argument from me there!! Oct 10 12 11:53 am Link howard r wrote: Maybe a true photography training curriculum would not only include marketing but therapy! Oct 10 12 11:56 am Link Woven Thought wrote: intense puppy wrote: I'd probably still be using mine if it hadn't been stolen!! Oct 10 12 12:06 pm Link Fotografica Gregor wrote: It's also possible to create great images without any of that. Oct 10 12 12:07 pm Link rp_photo wrote: Well of course - depending on what the goals and expectations are - Oct 10 12 12:17 pm Link KlassyKlix wrote: Some don't wear clothes. Oct 10 12 12:24 pm Link ChiMo wrote: It will impress your clients, but probably not your average Internet llama who knows she can get the same thing from someone else minus the ego trip. Oct 10 12 12:35 pm Link I factor in time off from my day job. If the photographer isn't going to pay me what I would be making there then it's not worth it to shoot. Oct 10 12 12:40 pm Link I'm likely not the world's greatest photographer ... but I haven't spent 6, or even 5 figures on equipment. I am self taught and haven't been doing it *that* long. I like to think my pictures get better and better all the time, but ultimately it's up to the individual to be the judge of that for themselves. Some people look at my port and say they "love it". Others look and say they hate it. What's the point? The point is I'm an artist. My work isn't for everyone and everyone isn't going to like it. No one cares if I shoot Canon or Nikon. They equally don't care if I show up with a tractor trailer filled with equipment or one camera body and one lens. What matters is that the images are of the same quality that's in my portfolio or better. The only cost I rant about is gasoline. Even that doesn't matter much because I either burn it to get to a shoot or I save it and don't get the shoot. Depending on the person involved, most of the time I'd rather burn it.  Oct 10 12 12:45 pm Link rp_photo wrote: This is the nadir of the nadir of your posts. Oct 10 12 12:48 pm Link the only thing that should impress anyone is the images. period. I spent most all my life as an amateur artist. its called being a scab artist. no formal education in art. in 1988 I took a job teaching at a local community college. I began taking courses at night that I was interested in. One of them was a life drawing class. the teacher was head of the art dept and had 3 masters degrees and a long career behind her. when we had the annual spring art show I entered one of my class project works. it was a juried art show that was judged by highly educated art professors from out of town. I won first place. later I had some of my art in a local gallery and sold all but one piece. after that I began doing consignment pieces for clients. when I got tired of the art 'scene' I got interested in photography. I spent $3,000 eight years ago [part of a retirement fund] and converted a large room [16X30] in my house into a studio. I have in excess of 230,000 archived raw images and about 8,000 edited images. I have had one camera and two lenses for all of that work. I had a set of 3 AB800 lights and misc accessories. Never changed a flash ring. never lost an image, camera still works perfectly. I became licensed in massage therapy and created a very successful business from the ground up with no public advertizing. The bottom line is the image, the art, the service you create/provide. The drive to excel at something determines what will happen for you as an individual. Make your own 'luck' and create your own destiny.yada yada yada. true story. results matter. Oct 10 12 01:06 pm Link JessicaBaker wrote: I'm curious how that doesn't go both ways. Oct 10 12 01:56 pm Link Woven Thought wrote: It does. Oct 10 12 02:00 pm Link fullmetalphotographer wrote: I can confirm both. The last time I was assigned to Obama there was this guy I have no idea how he was standing. He must have had 50 pounds of equipment strapped to him or hanging off him. The work is hard and the pay is not good. I perform community service is how I see it for the paper and do things on the side. Oct 10 12 03:19 pm Link rp_photo wrote: why??? you jealous? Oct 10 12 04:07 pm Link Photography is in the CG field today- you can learn all you need to know through google searches. It's no different than 3D or VFX or composting or digital painting. Oct 10 12 05:58 pm Link PHOTOS BY DILLEN wrote: Not at all, since my education cost almost 6 figures less. Oct 10 12 07:17 pm Link 
Photographer Posts: 4288 Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica Oct 10 12 07:37 pm Link Oct 10 12 07:45 pm Link The whole costs thing is also purely personal responsibility. Photography is exactly what you make of it. You don't need to spend much at all to enjoy the hobby AND produce high quality work. That being said, I like toys, so I end up spending more than I should.  Oct 10 12 08:04 pm Link Fotografica Gregor wrote: Natural nudes in the livingroom is my answer to those costs. Oct 10 12 08:05 pm Link If I need a lens, I shoot a wedding. If I feel the need to gloat about how much I've wasted on Camera gear, I save it for nerd chatter with other Photographers. How you present yourself matters, and I'm wary of anyone that focuses on their don't, won'ts, beefs and hates instead of what they actually want to create Oct 10 12 08:09 pm Link It IS indeed part of the formula for what photographers' rates should be based on.....but not a bargaining chip for what their work is actually worth. It's one of those things that should be factored in, not vocalized. Oct 10 12 08:12 pm Link So I don't care how much someone spent on gear, it just makes them sound like a bad business person. As for education, let's be honest about that; the majority of self taught photographers suck, plain and simple. Most cann't figure out exposure, get off program mode, or ask questions like what's the best lens for fashion/beauty/glamour or whatever, they can be found all over CL. At least those who went to school of some kind know how to work their equipment and how to creat an image. Sure it could be a boring image, school can't always help with that, but they know what / how they got there. Take a talented creative person and give them a decent education and they usually excel far beyond what just raw talent would have achieved. Oct 10 12 08:20 pm Link gotta love rants about rants Oct 10 12 08:26 pm Link KlassyKlix wrote: But in private, I've heard them bragg about the cost of their ( @ Y @ )'s :-))))) Oct 10 12 08:42 pm Link KlassyKlix wrote: I certainly hope not - I shoot nudes. Oct 10 12 08:43 pm Link So the OP saying he is so good he needs neither education nor top notch equipment seems to be just the other end of the spectrum..same rant though. But saying he's uneducated and cheap is a new twist on bragging. Gotta give him props for that. As for Trade shoots, everyone bears their own costs and if they feel they are getting the short end of the stick either they didn't iron out all the details of who does and gets what in advance of the shoot and/or should have never agreed to the shoot in the first place, or they are a just a legend in their own mind. Oct 10 12 09:00 pm Link Just love these dick waving rants as to who's spent more, had more education, blah, blah, blah. I find it interesting when these arguments come up to calculate just how much I have spent OVER THE YEARS on equipment and further training. It's all what I consider "business investment, turnover". Sure, I could go out and take better photos with my old Graphlex 4X5 than a lot of folks on here, but it's easier to whip out a newer, smaller, more efficient DSLR. I do what I do with what I have to do one thing - get the job done. People on here (the younger ones I'm guessing) love to criticize how some of the people that have been around for years take shittier photos than they can, even if they've never put in the effort or cost to study. But the thing is, can they do it consistently without ever flubbing? A person that's been in the business for years, even more than a critic's age, says one thing: they are successful at what they do. They can deliver. Creativity is all well and good, but when it comes right down to it, it doesn't mean shit if that isn't what your client wants. I've found many times over the years that you can bust your ass being creative and what the client ends up buying is the same old, same old because that's what they had in mind when they decided to purchase from you. Sure, I love being creative, it's the nature of this field whether it be a profession or a hobby, but I have to pay my bills, make a living and hopefully have some left over for other things - yeah, often that may be new gear because what I use on a daily basis wears out a lot quicker than that owned by the amateur. I love those infrequent times when I can drag out the old Mickey Moles and play around, but use them on a job? Not today. Perhaps what someone mentioned about people with an artistic flair having feelings of inferiority or a lack of confidence may be true. It seems to ring out in many of these rants. Perhaps they feel the seasoned pro is too stiff of competition and thus try to tear them down lest they never achieve the place the pro holds. But they can if they want and if they WORK at it. Nothing comes free and no one is going to hand you a brass ring just because you want it. Yeah, I'm one of those that have spent a lot. It's a requirement. I'd be happy to sell some of you an 8,000 dollar camera for a couple of hundred, since for a while you could pick them up on Ebay for 50 - 100 bucks. Then, you could brag about how much you have in (past) value. But you won't find see me being one of those that lists all their gear and value - crooks can read these posts too. As to those that think they are far better than old pros, prove it, and I don't mean by posting a kewl image or two. Show me your financial records on what you've made the past few years. Show me your financial projections and your account developments. But hey, don't worry, we old guys are retiring every day and that means there's a lot of solid business out there for you. All you have to do is what we did - go get it by working for it. One place I never waste my time with is the critique section. Why? Because we all have our ideas of what art is whether it is or isn't. I don't like to speak on someone else's craftmanship. I critique my own work and I'm a hell of a hard ass on it. Almost everything could be improved in some way or another. Critiquing a person's artwork is akin to critiquing his religion. If he wants help, fine, but who am I to say what is and isn't right in his depiction of his own idea? Oct 10 12 09:01 pm Link ChiMo wrote: Far toooo true. Oct 11 12 12:32 am Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: Since nude models don't have the expense of cloths, and MUA, should they not charge less????? Oct 11 12 12:46 am Link Jules NYC wrote: Speculation here. Oct 11 12 12:53 am Link rp_photo wrote: I also work with a low 5 figure's worth of gear: Oct 11 12 12:56 am Link Jordan Bunniie wrote: Try shooting Polaroid film Oct 11 12 12:58 am Link ASYLUM - Photo wrote: And they are very lovely - Oct 11 12 01:04 am Link fullmetalphotographer wrote: Only in California. lol Oct 11 12 01:08 am Link rp_photo wrote: Photography equipment has always been expensive, either for a hobbyist or a professional. It's just a fact of life. Oct 11 12 01:15 am Link rp_photo wrote: From my own experiences with evening classes, the way some of these colleges are run (in the UK) I'm not surprised they are questionable. Oct 11 12 02:07 am Link Herman Surkis wrote: That would depend on whose contributions were more significant to the success of the images created. Anything outside that time is irrelevant. I can bill a hefty hourly rate for custom software development. That has no bearing on how valuable my contributions might be helping my neighbor repair his car. It doesn't matter if you're the greatest lawyer in 100 miles, when you have a camera in your hand your value is determined by the quality of the images that you produce. Oct 11 12 04:15 am Link |
