Herman Surkis wrote:
He is good...
Not as great as he thinks he is.
Not as innovative as he thinks he is.
Worth $1000 a sitting...no.

But damn it all, he is a great self promoter.
And he really hits it as a motivational speaker (even if it often comes off like a late night K-Tel sales pitch).

Of course, he is worth his $1350, which his clients pay--believing they are getting great photos. He invested in Hasselblad and lights, and studio, lenses and a studio as well. In L.A. some headshot photographers charge $650.

LA StarShooter wrote:
Of course, he is worth his $1350, which his clients pay--believing they are getting great photos. He invested in Hasselblad and lights, and studio, lenses and a studio as well. In L.A. some headshot photographers charge $650.

i dunno, from a client's perspective, despite having photography knowledge.. I don't really give a shit about that. Just the end product and what it does for me over something i can get cheaper somewhere else. They are a dime a dozen in LA.

Solas wrote:
i dunno, from a client's perspective, despite having photography knowledge.. I don't really give a shit about that. Just the end product and what it does for me over something i can get cheaper somewhere else. They are a dime a dozen in LA.

300-350 is the standard price for four looks in headshots in L.A. Actors do care about looking good, which is why Peter Hurley books work because his photos work for them.  Also, if you look at his website, then his client list, which includes Vogue, and also look that in 2014 he got Backstages Award as NY's best headshot photographer, you'll see why actors book him. He was also an actor, which is a powerful marketing tool.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Photographers like Hurley are booked as much for who they know as their talent.   Many MM shooters produce work comparable to his but who do they know.   Hurley is working with A list talent.   He has access to great re-touchers.   $1,000 seems like a lot but for not the people he's shooting.    In fact I think he charges more then a $1,000 to shoot.   Remember he has assistants and two studios.   Here's a link to some of the best portrait  shooters around and two are members of this site.   http://www.photographydo.com/portrait-p … eed-to-see

Don't ever mistake talent for marketing.   I went to a club and saw a kid who could out sing and out dance Michael Jackson.   This kid was awesome and this is an early Mike when he was with his brothers.   He never went anywhere.   Its who you know.   How well your marketed.

Why I said that he is brilliant at marketing.

Watched a vid where he made a so-so photographer feel like they were David Bailey. That is motivation and marketing.

Ok, he is good at connecting with and handling his subjects.

But others have said all in all not really better than hundreds of others (although he will tell you he is one of, if not the best). But he is certainly in the top at marketing himself.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
Apparently, he is worth $1000+ to a whole lot of clients.  That, and I like his stuff.  His head shots don't have that fake look.  They are very organic and clean.

Hell, I've been guilty of maybe being overzealous with some frequency separation and the healing brush. 

He just takes the images, paid his $1350 or more now,, done... Then sends them to a retouching firm,, client works it for there on what they want,, he has a good set up but like everyone is saying it is who you know....  At the same time he does have a point,, if you get the job making thousands/ whatever, money because of his image,, he was a model he knows what they are paid for jobs in NYC and LA and he works it from there.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
If you're getting paid $XXXX then you are worth $XXXX it's as simple as that. The market will determine the perceived Value/Value. Contrary to what the average person believes. Some people have money, and want what they believe to be the best, and will not be happy shooting with someone else. There are also people that do not liked sales or discounts and enjoy paying prices that are high just because others can not afford to.

120 % AGRRED

ST Retouch wrote:
I am wondering why many people think that $1000 -$1200 is expensive for professional headshot and professional portrait photography for actors, business people etc.

3-4 hours of professional shooting in professional studio, professional cameras, lenses, lighting, and later 3-4 files with professional retouching work .

$1000 is very reasonable price from my point of view .

Or maybe I miss something because I don't shoot portrait photography for actors  and I don't know how things work in US?
Maybe shooting is for only one hour with just one file, without make up artist, hair dresser etc?

Can someone explain me what clients get for $1000 , how many hours of shooting in studio, is there make up artist, hair dresser, professional non-destructive retouching and how many files clients get  and which licenses?

Thank you

Let me put if this way:  most agree that your average Porsche is better than your average VW. I'd take a Boxter over a GTI any day, unless I had a dog.

But is a cheap Porsche better than a high-end VW? The Cayenne and Toureg are almost identical. I think the interior might be different.

But lots of people buy the Cayenne, even though they pay more for the same vehicle.

And that is why Peter Hurley gets his rates. Trying to break it down by value misses the point, because people with that much money aren't generally value shoppers.

ST Retouch wrote:
I am wondering why many people think that $1000 -$1200 is expensive for professional headshot and professional portrait photography for actors, business people etc.

3-4 hours of professional shooting in professional studio, professional cameras, lenses, lighting, and later 3-4 files with professional retouching work .

$1000 is very reasonable price from my point of view .

Or maybe I miss something because I don't shoot portrait photography for actors  and I don't know how things work in US?
Maybe shooting is for only one hour with just one file, without make up artist, hair dresser etc?

Can someone explain me what clients get for $1000 , how many hours of shooting in studio, is there make up artist, hair dresser, professional non-destructive retouching and how many files clients get  and which licenses?

Thank you

Because they don't know any better.  This forum is not comprised of commercial photographers or those who even have an understanding of commercial photography.  They think if they're making $50,000 a year taking photos they're doing well (hint, in the commercial realm, you're not...)

LA StarShooter wrote:
Of course, he is worth his $1350, which his clients pay--believing they are getting great photos. He invested in Hasselblad and lights, and studio, lenses and a studio as well. In L.A. some headshot photographers charge $650.

Well... this shows the power of branding.

People want to pay $1,350 for a portrait or $5,000 or even more, because it's Peter Hurley or [insert big name photographer] , not because of the gear.

Branding determines the perceived value.

After all, rich people rather say that they were shot by Peter Hurley, than at the local portrait shop in the mall...

Mr. Tengu wrote:
Well... this shows the power of branding.

People want to pay $1,350 for a portrait or $5,000 or even more, because it's Peter Hurley or [insert big name photographer] , not because of the gear.

Branding determines the perceived value.

After all, rich people rather say that they were shot by Peter Hurley, than at the local portrait shop in the mall...

^^^ What HE ^^^ said! 

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Because they don't know any better.  This forum is not comprised of commercial photographers or those who even have an understanding of commercial photography.  They think if they're making $50,000 a year taking photos they're doing well (hint, in the commercial realm, you're not...)

Wow, how pretentious and mouthy.

It's because of this, actually. It has nothing to do with our income level..aren't you supposed to be a forum guide? Direct the peace and all that? Not intentionally start fights ?

Garry k wrote:
Not really familiar with him so I had to google

IMO - there are local Head Shot Photogrpahers who charge half of what he charges and are twice as good

Just my opinion

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Don't ever mistake talent for marketing.

It's an old legend that you can substitute talent by marketing.
No - you won't sell shit as diamonds with great marketing. Only people who failed selling their shit claim this.

To be successful you either have to sell your customers what they urge to have or dig out a demand that has been hidden until you pointed at it.

It's like street music - always and everywhere. "The hat does not lie."

Besides this: "Envy is the most honest way of recognition." (Old german saying)

Herman Surkis wrote:
Ok, he is good at connecting with and handling his subjects.

Have you ever seen a movie or a TV show where a good actor gives a terrible performance?  In many cases, that's caused by bad directing.

When you're shooting headshots, it's your job to get a performance out of the actor.  You have to direct.  They're playing the part of themselves, and frankly, that's something a lot of actors got into the business to avoid.  It can be a terrifying and highly emotional experience, especially considering that many actors are flat broke and headshots are an absolutely necessary investment if they want to be taken seriously enough no to be flat broke anymore.  They have 2-3 hours to give the single performance that will determine the next 6-12 months of their lives.

That's a lot of pressure on the actor, which means a lot of work for the photographer.

If someone pays $1,000 for a headshot, and that headshot gets him and audition that leads to a $50,000 commercial, wouldn't you consider the price of the headshot to be extremely affordable?

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Because they don't know any better.  This forum is not comprised of commercial photographers or those who even have an understanding of commercial photography.  They think if they're making $50,000 a year taking photos they're doing well (hint, in the commercial realm, you're not...)

Solas wrote:
Wow, how pretentious and mouthy.

It's because of this, actually. It has nothing to do with our income level..aren't you supposed to be a forum guide? Direct the peace and all that? Not intentionally start fights ?

Garry k wrote:
Not really familiar with him so I had to google

IMO - there are local Head Shot Photogrpahers who charge half of what he charges and are twice as good

Just my opinion

I thought I was supposed to call out ignorance when I saw it and try to correct it (which has become so rampant on this site, I rarely bother anymore).  Believe me, I was being nice, I could get a lot "mouthier."

Solas wrote:
Lot of sheep in this thread.. no wonder marketers make so much money.

What's the big deal with the desire for a continuous light, hairlight and 4 reflectors? That's all he's doing, from the look of it.
Not like you need a hassy and top end gear to do that. You can probably do it for less than a grand at home
Subject in the middle, little bit of a squinch? That'll be $1k please. Pay at the door, next to the line going out the door.

Of course you can recreate the lighting for less than that.  The rate isn't based on the cost of the lights.

The rate is based on the fact that those headshots get actors work.  If they didn't get actors work, Peter would go out of business.  That is the reality of the headshot market. 

Casting directors know good heahshots when they see them.  They remember the actors in them.  Actors who casting directors remember get gigs.  Actors who have forgettable headshots wait tables.

Solas wrote:
It's nothing to do with his photography. It's his interpersonal skills, it's who he knows, it's his marketing and influencer position as HIM.

For many years, I have pointed out on MM that one of the most undervalued and barely mentioned skills of a photographer is the interpersonal skill when dealing with clients... and with the subject of the photoshoot.

So, I am agreeing with you on this point.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Of course you can recreate the lighting for less than that.  The rate isn't based on the cost of the lights.

The rate is based on the fact that those headshots get actors work.  If they didn't get actors work, Peter would go out of business.  That is the reality of the headshot market. 

Casting directors know good heahshots when they see them.  They remember the actors in them.  Actors who casting directors remember get gigs.  Actors who have forgettable headshots wait tables.

I wonder how much of his $$$ is a split between selling consistent headshots and convincing photographers they need to know what he does, in order to sell headshots?

Solas wrote:

In 30 seconds I found about 5 photographers who do the same look as you do, the same over-photo shopped "cinematic" look. I bet if I contacted them, and said.. hey I'm working with so and so motors, we want you to do an ad. What do you think would happen? I'd likely get a medley of responses. Someone would send me an excel template of a budget. Another would be "$1500/day" and maybe a few more would ask for more info (ding ding).

Not for one second would the price matter as much as the interpersonal skills and attitude of the photographer.

Maybe something to think about.

Your work is not unique.
His work is not unique.

His market: is photographers, with the desire to make their work sellable.. like his.. without recognizing that THEY ARE HIS MARKET. Buy my $300 DVD. I'll teach you to be me. NO.. because his brand, his work? It's nothing to do with his photography. It's his interpersonal skills, it's who he knows, it's his marketing and influencer position as HIM.

You? All I know your work for is for your comments on model mayhem. That's all I think of when I view your work.

Perfect, that's all you need to know.

Apparently it's time for another hiatus from the site for awhile...

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Apparently it's time for another hiatus from the site for awhile...

You could have answered me in any other way, but instead you chose a personal attack about my income level. For the record, I'm probably looking at paying more tax in a year. Still wouldn't find me making that kind of snide comment looking down my nose at someone who earned less for their opinion. Like the way Diaz said, that was a far more appropriate way to "correct ignorance". You taking a direct shot at my income? Burned your bridges with me, Mr. Cherry.

Solas wrote:
You could have answered me in any other way, but instead you chose a personal attack about my income level. For the record, I'm probably looking at paying more tax in a year. Still wouldn't find me making that kind of snide comment looking down my nose at someone who earned less for their opinion. Like the way Diaz said, that was a far more appropriate way to "correct ignorance". You taking a direct shot at my income? Burned your bridges with me, Mr. Cherry.

1) My post was not directed at you, nor was it specifically about you.  I did not take a shot at your income, I was making a general statement regarding what I see written on this site by photographers who don't understand commercial rates, and who can't understand how someone could possibly charge over $1,000 for a headshot session.  How you took that as a personal attack is beyond me.

2) I don't know you, why would I care what you think of me - or for that matter, have any idea what your income is?

3) After a while you get tired of hearing people (especially some in other threads with little to no talent - this is not specifically directed at you) bemoan the success of others with the same tired mantras. 

4) I gave a more detailed response in the following post.

5) I'm tired, I'm not feeling well and I apparently should stay off this site for a while.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
1) I did not take a shot at your income, I was making a general statement regarding what I see written on this site by photographers who don't understand commercial rates, and who can't understand how someone could possibly charge over $1,000 for a headshot session.  How you took that as a personal attack is beyond me.
.

You replied directly to my comment about art, you called it out as people who did not "understand commercial rates" .. bullshit. It's not ignorance that you photographers need to make money to recoup your fancy hasselblads, it's the fact that you can get the same look.. anywhere else.. as a headshot client *.. for a lot cheaper. The lighting is not unique, hence why I said a college kid could do it for $80 with 4 reflectors, an overhead softbox and a continuous light.

Nobody cares what you spent on gear, if they can get the same look cheaper.. from anywhere else. This stuff isn't rocket science. It's pure branding and marketed in such a way to make you think you want it.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
5) I'm tired, I'm not feeling well and I apparently should stay off this site for a while.

That's cute.