Mike Collins wrote:
What a lot of people don't get is, this is a marketing and selling business.  Every business is.  It's not really the product or service.  Thousands offer the same exact thing.  Some better.  Some as good.  And some worse.  Guess which one makes the money?  The good ones?  No.  The ones that understand marketing and selling.  Chances are the bad ones will probably not make it anyway but average to good photographers don't make it JUST based on their work. 

Peter shoots a great headshot.  So does perhaps hundreds of others in NY.  But he is BETTER at the business end.  What do you think the PROFESSIONAL in PROFESSIONAL photographer means?  It means your in BUSINESS.  So you better be good at that part as well or you may as well just enjoy it as a hobby.  Unless your happy with the few buck here and there.  Nothing wrong with that either.

As a professional, you are a marketer and seller of photographic services.  Period. 

The mere fact that we are talking about Peter just proves that he is very good at promoting himself.  GREAT!!!  HE IS SUPPOSE TOO!!.  Good job Peter.

Agree.

Starting here.

Peter and others are absolutely right, that what is charged has to relate to the costs of doing business. It's called being a business person. If your costs are $100/hr and you only charge $80, you will be out of business in a hurry. Annie L. increased her costs without being able to increase her billing to the point she had to declare bankruptcy. Good business says you charge enough to make a sufficient profit to make a good living. That will vary depending on the location where you are working.

Udor has brought up, comments by those who are not as good as those they are criticizing. One does not have to be as good as Da Vinci, Rembrandt etc. to know that they are good. You also do not need to be that good to recognize that Fred down the street is a hack. Yes, there is some truth to "Those who can, do. Those who can't critique." But it is NOT a universal truth.

And many have found that those who can are often willing to help those who can't. Udor is one of those. 

Except for some unwarranted sniping this has been a somewhat useful thread.

The call for photographers to support all photographers, will never happen. Just look at what other artists do to each other. And I will NEVER support a hack photographer (generic, NOT aimed at anyone) just because they are a photographer. And just because you are famous, does not mean you are good (what does Kim K actually do?).

I know I am not as good as Peter, although on occasion I will pull off an equally as good shot, but consistently, hell no. I am not willing to put in the work needed to be that consistent, and it is a lot of work, make no mistake about that.

I and others disagree with Peter that there is a huge market out there for headsots. In certain very limited areas it may be true, but generally no. However he is correct when he backs down and claims that it is a largely untapped market for added income. And if you become the best in your location, and become the go-to photographer you may have it made. Portrait studios are closing down left, right, and centre. In interviews Peter has admitted that he has had to back off much of his expansion. Not sure if even the LA studio is actually totally his anymore.

Early Peter had to overcome a lack of confidence, his words and it showed in early vids. Then he learned to develop his confidence in himself, came with experience, and proving that he was good at what he did. Now, to me, it has started to feel like it has gone overboard, and yet it may be just what is needed to sell the package. I would bet that the package is bringing in more profits than the actual photography (bet, do NOT know). And if the package gets photographers to become better photographers and to be able to exude more confidence, then he has provided a major service.

I get annoyed when someone gets put on a pedestal that does not deserve it, and usually for the wrong reasons. Does it matter to me. Hell no. Does it annoy me, hell yes. Peter is a very good photographer. But he is a brilliant marketer. He is also very good at motivating. Some (many?) of his followers are mistaking the 2 (3).

A perfect example were all the "OMG", "OMG", "OMG", Peter dropped in to make a comment.
My only thought was "cool", any mistakes made by myself and others will be clarified. And how the hell did he find the time?

Being able to pass on ideas is a major talent in and of itself.
There are a couple of local 'mediocre' photographers (mediocre means medium quality) photographers locally, that I would recommend for workshops and if you want to learn what and how they do what they do. There are some brilliant local photographers that refuse to do presentations, and after hearing some, when they got talked in it, I understand why.

Following NOT about Peter...

I get annoyed when some of the kids on Creative Live come off as having just invented the wheel, and discovering fire. The no nothing kids that they are preaching to may buy this, but anybody who has been around knows better. Why does this annoy me? Because it has the feel of a snake oil salesman, or someone who copies an Avedon image, and claims that they are the second coming. Or the types that go to a workshop, where the workshop instructor sets everything up, including the pose, and now the photographer posts this on their website saying how good they are.
Sorry for the tangent here.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Peter has a vested interest in saying things are fine or growing.   

He sells instructional videos and workshops.

thats like totally  tubular

Peter Hurley Photo wrote:

In your face, kinda guy, I like it, I like it a lot
You made my day,Peter Hurley 


I just had a question since your here , if I may. Do you study/ have you studied yours and other faces purposely? The how things look/ look better things? Any thing you have noticed, that you would like to pass on?

THANKS again for popping in

thiswayup wrote:
Or alternatively, what you can see is limited by your talent, complete ignorance of the market and unwillingness to see that your own taste is subjective and limited.

Hurley's key success was in the market for actor's head shots. Do you know anything about this market at all? It's bitterly competitive because getting work for actors is super-bitterly competitive. Actors tend to go where there agents tell them to go for almost everything - voice coaching, Alexander Technique, head shots. And agents are on commission - they do NOT send their clients to anyone they think isn't the best. And an agent's definition of "best" is simply the supplier most likely to get his client work and so pay the agent's bills.

However, you don't know anything about this - you just look at images, decide you don't like them, and conclude that if someone is more successful than you they may must have an inside track. Well, no - this isn't a terribly sane or sensible way to think about this market.

As for your belief that model's have an unfair inside track on becoming fashion photographers... Firstly quoting one or two examples hardly proves this. Secondly, to accuse Ellen von Unwerth of having succeeded on contacts rather than talent because you don't see what is special about her work is, reasonably, rather more likely to be a statement about your limitations than anything approaching a reasoned argument. And thirdly, most of fashion photography is about posting the model, vision, and a feel for fashion; f-stops and flash are relatively simple. So a model actually has superb preparation in the things that actually matter.

Back to trolling I see.   This will be my last response to you.   I have no respect for you.   I don't believe you graduated from a university with a degree in Physics as you claim.        This member said it best:

" marissa charles wrote:

This is hilarious 😆
This sounds more like your own life, mate. You are lying to yourself as NO ONE on this site agrees or endorses anything you post. Your default opening statement in any thread is to disagree first with a comment and then you immediately attack the person's work whilst comparing yourself to proper photographers who understand the craft and have clocked up YEARS of experience. I actually think you are not a photographer at all and your port is set up as a cover, in order to enter the website to satisfy your trolling addiction,  hence the questionable port.
And before you start attacking my work, I shall link your tag on my profile

thiswayup

Photographer

I love your profile - so sensible and grounded while still interested in the whacky fun to be had. I just wish we near enough to shoot!"   I think you're a troublemaker.   You're mean.   You're insulting.   Since I have no respect for your opinion or you.    I won't reply further.   However let me be clear.   I respect Peter's skill and business.
acumen.   He's certainly better then I am.   There are members of MM who I don't agree with but I respect.   They generally mean well.   You don't.

p a o n e wrote:


thats like totally  tubular

God that is old.

And even then I never got it, except that it was supposed to be positive.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Udor has brought up, comments by those who are not as good as those they are criticizing. One does not have to be as good as Da Vinci, Rembrandt etc. to know that they are good. You also do not need to be that good to recognize that Fred down the street is a hack. Yes, there is some truth to "Those who can, do. Those who can't critique." But it is NOT a universal truth.

And many have found that those who can are often willing to help those who can't. Udor is one of those. 

Thank you for the props, Herman! Much appreciated, coming from you!

You are completely correct if you say that people can recognize good and outstanding work. However, it is one thing to recognize outstanding work and not so outstanding work... BUT if that person states, e.g. that any dude with $80 lighting kit can produce the same work and hence it's overrated and overpaid, and that this person then has portfolio images that clearly show that this person isn't able to produce consistent and coherent work that goes beyond accidental results and lacks command over simple lighting processes, posting the model and produces an awkward feel... well... in that case... I am calling that person out and that's the type of person I was referring to.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Wow just gotta say , some people become star struck so quick ,made me laugh.

Since you are independently wealthy, with properties all over the world in the most sought after regions, such as Tuscany, etc., and photography is a hobby and not something you do to sustain a living... maybe you should sit this one out and let those people who are trying to make a living and to learn from those who successfully do, looking for strategies of people who successfully make a career with photography, Just let them acknowledge accomplished colleagues, such as Peter Hurley, without insulting them by calling them "star-struck".

Because you don't do this for a living... you are not a colleague, Mr. Davidson and don't know what this discussion is even about.

Worry about your photography as a skilled enthusiast, Mr. Davidson. You are rich and the income and the business side of photography is none of your concern, so don't make snarky, patronizing remarks about people who try to make a living, simply because you are absolutely clueless about our industry and struggles.

Maybe, one time... if you loose your wealth (it can happen, I have been there) and you, Mr. Davidson have suddenly to market yourself in the photographic industry... maybe then you will finally understand... until then... stop being jealous about the attention and respect known photographers get from those who respect their accomplishments, and enjoy your hobby!

Toodles for now and if you don't like that recommendation..., please go and play in traffic!

thiswayup wrote:
Or alternatively, what you can see is limited by your talent, complete ignorance of the market and unwillingness to see that your own taste is subjective and limited.

Oh no. Solas is gone and things were becoming more positive and constructive again.  Until...

;(

I'd suggest that THIS is why people get fed up with the forums.

LightDreams wrote:
Oh no. Solas is gone and things were becoming more positive and constructive again.  Until...

;(

I'd suggest that THIS is why people get fed up with the forums.

Because it's positive to claim that people more successful than you only achieved that success unfairly? Really? I'd have said it was bitter, unfair, and definitively negative.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There are a lot of talented shooters on MM who live and work in small markets.   Worse they never meet anyone who can help them.    If you look at many of our current and past legends you may find that they assisted well known pros.   
One of our stellar members worked with Patrick Demarchelier (Jerry Avenaim) Ken Marcus and Ansel Adams.  Some started by being around the fashion world.   Avedon and Meisel.   Some were MUA or hairstylists like Chicago's Ernest Collins.   Having a famous dad helps.   Terry Richardson.   You still have to know what you're doing but its really helpful to have a inside track.



Edit:   I don't want to give the impression that any of those I mentioned wouldn't have done as well without knowing others or being former models.   They are fantastic talents but in life a lot of success comes with who you know.   Who likes your work and you and talent.   With the emphasis on talent.

Access (i.e., "who you know") can get you an in, but you still have to deliver.  And yes, in an area like fashion, which is where you seem to be centered, there are so few slots available in the high end, that access seems like everything.  But in other areas, I think it's still helpful but not career maker (as much as a career starting shot).

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Access (i.e., "who you know") can get you an in, but you still have to deliver.  And yes, in an area like fashion, which is where you seem to be centered, there are so few slots available in the high end, that access seems like everything.  But in other areas, I think it's still helpful but not career maker (as much as a career starting shot).

If you look at many if not most of the current and past star fashion and beauty shooters they have been assistants to well known photographers.   Its very difficult to get your work seen by AD or magazine editors without help.  Its about meeting people and yes its also about delivering but a lot of its consistency.   Being a former model is helpful.   Being related to someone with influence.   Terry Ricardson  might not have become a famous shooter so quickly without his fathers connections.   Once in your in you have to produce.   However having great models, MUA, stylists, locations, budgets and more... often makes it easier to get great imagery.   

A former member criticized Hurley.    Frankly I didn't know Peter was a member.   However Peter is a public figure and while critiques outside of that forum are against the rules the member who said those things may not have known he was here yet he also has a right to express himself.   My remarks to him were about what he said to you.   I'm happy for Peter.   Yet we must also understand he has a vested interest.   Digital has turned paid photography on its head.  I watched a vlog where two commercial shooters talked about a Time magazine cover that Time paid a photographer on this site $40.00 to use.   That same shot years past might mean $1,500 to the shooter.

In a world of Instagram and iPhones,  photographers are being paid less and offered less that includes head shots.   Being new and trying to break into the well paid work of fashion or commercial or even product is daunting even with help.   Peter has expensive workshops.   It would be foolish to say that attendees couldn't make money doing head shots.   The sad truth is that print is dying.   Studios continue to shut down.   Some well known shooters are doing workshops to make money.   Victoria Secret is stopping their print catalog.   A member said Peter was better then me.   I'd hope so.   95% of the models I shoot are friends or folks I meet out and about.   I don't usually have MUA nor do I have big budgets.    This wasn't about comparing what amateurs on this site do to Peter.

We should be say how we feel with respect.   A  members wasn't respectful of you.   What I object to are trolls.

thiswayup wrote:
Let's consider some more the idea that Unwerth is successful because models have an inside track due to their contacts. WHAT contacts? Models work closely with photographers and model agencies - not the editors and clients who make careers. Models have a hard enough time avoiding being abused and cheated during their modeling  careers - the idea that being a model provides terrific political capital they can exploit is doubly silly. What Unwerth was talent and the ability to transfer meaningful experience she had gained as a model to her new career. And if some people say she isn't talented - well, the kindest thing you can say is that tastes vary. But more brutally, posting on a forum or buying a camera doesn't require that you have any ability at all to compose or even recognize a good image, and it could very well be that you think EVU lacks talent for this reason.

Or, of course, hordes of successful editors, hard-nosed clients, collectors, admiring peers and experienced modes - and over a quarter of a million igram followers - could be wrong and you're the genius. In which case, get out there and prove how good you are - use the excellent models who will queue to shoot with you to create amazing instagram and flickr accounts that will get you the sort of follower numbers that these days will bring commercial clients.

Please tell us what actual experience you have in the fashion industry?  None?  Or... Did you read it in a book?

LightDreams wrote:

Oh no. Solas is gone and things were becoming more positive and constructive again.  Until...

;(

I'd suggest that THIS is why people get fed up with the forums.

He'll be back -- probably with a new aka. He never stays away for long. Just keep your eyes peeled for those northern lights :p

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Please tell us what actual experience you have in the fashion industry?  None?  Or... Did you read it in a book?

I agree... his statement is just not what I myself experience in my market... I am reading it and wonder where he got his info from, because it looks like an interpolation of different articles combined with some ideas how it ought to be in his opinion.

Anyway... moving on...

Tony Lawrence wrote:
If you look at many if not most of the current and past star fashion and beauty shooters they have been assistants to well known photographers.   Its very difficult to get your work seen by AD or magazine editors without help.  Its about meeting people and yes its also about delivering but a lot of its consistency.   Being a former model is helpful.   Being related to someone with influence.   Terry Ricardson  might not have become a famous shooter so quickly without his fathers connections.   Once in your in you have to produce.   However having great models, MUA, stylists, locations, budgets and more... often makes it easier to get great imagery.   

A former member criticized Hurley.    Frankly I didn't know Peter was a member.   However Peter is a public figure and while critiques outside of that forum are against the rules the member who said those things may not have known he was here yet he also has a right to express himself.   My remarks to him were about what he said to you.   I'm happy for Peter.   Yet we must also understand he has a vested interest.   Digital has turned paid photography on its head.  I watched a vlog where two commercial shooters talked about a Time magazine cover that Time paid a photographer on this site $40.00 to use.   That same shot years past might mean $1,500 to the shooter.

In a world of Instagram and iPhones,  photographers are being paid less and offered less that includes head shots.   Being new and trying to break into the well paid work of fashion or commercial or even product is daunting even with help.   Peter has expensive workshops.   It would be foolish to say that attendees couldn't make money doing head shots.   The sad truth is that print is dying.   Studios continue to shut down.   Some well known shooters are doing workshops to make money.   Victoria Secret is stopping their print catalog.   A member said Peter was better then me.   I'd hope so.   95% of the models I shoot are friends or folks I meet out and about.   I don't usually have MUA nor do I have big budgets.    This wasn't about comparing what amateurs on this site do to Peter.

We should be say how we feel with respect.   A  members wasn't respectful of you.   What I object to are trolls.

I appreciate it.

And I agree with what you are saying in terms of fashion/beauty shooters.  Other aspects of photography have different "ins" is all I'm pointing out.  For example, if you wish to have a brilliant career as an art photographer, getting your MFA from Yale goes a LONG way.  Does it insure success?  No more than having been Avedon's assistant does...  Which means, if you have the chops, it sure does help.

If you seek to work in commercial advertising, ins also help, but that field is far, far larger than fashion which makes it easier to break into as long as you're producing the work they want to see (which for some like myself, can be the hardest part).

How many people are really making a decent living shooting fashion?  I define this as well into six figures, on a regular basis, year after year.  Six?  A dozen?  Two dozen?  Certainly not 100...

Peter Hurley Photo wrote:
I've never done a reply on here so I have no idea what I'm doing. However, you guys are hilarious! I got a google alert with this and normally wouldn't answer, but my skin has grown thicker and I'm happy for you to lay into me all you want.

Just start by looking at what ST Retouch(Thanks ST Retouch) put out here. You have no idea what my overhead is or what I'm shooting commercially on a daily basis. How you can rip apart a successful photographer making it in this day and age is beyond me. Isn't this what we all want to do? I believe headshot photography is the biggest growing genre of portraiture right now, so if you don't jump onboard and do consider yourself a portrait photographer then you'll be missing a buck for sure.

Few things to clarify although this will really piss you naysayers off. I still shoot a number of actors, but most of them are my returning clients. Corporate has gotten so massive in terms of headshot photography that I've gone that route and my Headshot Crew Associates shoot a lot of the actors now. I don't know where you got that my rate was $1300. It's actually 5K for my not artistic mediocre at best work as many of you have stated. Here's my rate page: https://peterhurley.com/rates

OK, so I did it. I responded. Bring on the onslaught of crap I'm about to be hit with.

Bazinga 😉


( I have to admit I did not know your rate for headshots but it puzzles me that people equate headshots with day rates but I am of course familiar with your work).

Thanks for stopping by

KungPaoChic wrote:

Bazinga 😉


( I have to admit I did not know your rate for headshots but it puzzles me that people equate headshots with day rate but I am of course familiar with your work).

Thanks for stopping by

I think most people come to photography through retail photography where day rates and print sales apply (and where, apparently, $1,500 for a day seems like a lot of money).

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

I think most people come to photography through retail photography where day rates and print sales apply (and where, apparently, $1,500 for a day seems like a lot of money).

It goes a little beyond that.
Most here are NOT working photographers and forget to factor in overhead in the pricing of an image. (guilty as charged). This is the nemesis of working photographers, and many fold-up  even when they are very good. As was pointed out by Peter and others, the costs of doing business in NYC are hellacious and what you have to charge to survive will be scary. I made a fundamental mistake of questioning his prices by local costs. My bad.

The rest for the most part has been instructive and polite, with the usual occasional misunderstanding.

The following is my response to a PM from somebody who mistakenly thought I was attacking them. The politeness of asking in a PM instead of going after me in the thread is what makes the forums good. The reverse, not so much. Identifiers removed due to it being a PM. The writer can choose to identify themselves. My quoting my response, of course is perfectly legitimate.

PM:

"Is there something you are wanting to say to me.

Because you seem to be beating around it in the thread...snip"

My response:

"Yep, we are all entitled to an opinion. And yep, that opinion may or may not be worth anything.
Absolutely no disagreement.

My point was to the person who said that they disagreed with with me, and it was their right to have that opinion.
I agreed that they had a right to voice an opinion. As long as it is done politely and respectfully.
I was trying to voice my opinions in a respectful manner, and likely did not always succeed.

Sorry, but you are not even in the same country if you think this is what I was saying about you, "I'm sorry if you don't feel I've been helpful here.  I've been trying to be helpful as a teacher and on this site <redacted>  Whether it was film photography, darkroom work, digital photography, traditional, composite, whatever. "

Not even close. No way, no how, was I actually referring to anybody that was on this thread. And sadly I cannot remember ( more of an issue of failing memory) how helpful you have been, since there are so many that have been helpful to the general public. And you are correct, far too many have been driven off by the righteous know-nothings. I pick and choose, whom and about what I will pay attention. To do less is to get a major headache, and loads of bad information. Just because someone is very good in one area, does not make them an expert in another. How many times have people believed nonsense about sociology coming from a nuclear physicist?

I have not paid too much attention to <redacted>, but I know I have agreed with him on occasion. Even a dead clock is right twice a day.

Any comment I make, WILL only be partially right. I would have to do a book length comment on anything that matters to even come close to be totally right and would still not succeed. Every time I speak, I hope someone will politely fill in the gaps of whatever I say. And far, far too often I come back with "I never thought of it that way""

Dean Johnson Photo wrote:
Remember folks, ignoring trolls is the right thing to do.

Trolls, there are trolls on MM. MM has no bridges!

(sorry, could not stop myself)

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

I appreciate it.

And I agree with what you are saying in terms of fashion/beauty shooters.  Other aspects of photography have different "ins" is all I'm pointing out.  For example, if you wish to have a brilliant career as an art photographer, getting your MFA from Yale goes a LONG way.  Does it insure success?  No more than having been Avedon's assistant does...  Which means, if you have the chops, it sure does help.

If you seek to work in commercial advertising, ins also help, but that field is far, far larger than fashion which makes it easier to break into as long as you're producing the work they want to see (which for some like myself, can be the hardest part).

How many people are really making a decent living shooting fashion?  I define this as well into six figures, on a regular basis, year after year.  Six?  A dozen?  Two dozen?  Certainly not 100...

I can name 25 photographers off the top of my head (no puns) who make well over a million a year.   My guess is several thousand who do as well shooting fashions alone.   Many have names unknown outside of the fashion industry.   Shooters like the late Bill King were awesome but the average person wouldn't have known him and in fact several members in this thread weren't familiar with Peter.   The photographers who we most often hear of are those who shoot stars or well known models.   Folks like lindbergh and Stein and Annie are legends but there are thousands  of photographers who make bank.   Commercial is the most consistent but many of the fashion shooters do that as well.   I know a local photographer who pays over $10,000/month for a space.   I watched a kid drop $17,000 in ten minutes at Calumet Photo years ago while I fished for change for my used crap.    I was looking at Jamie Nelsons work a few days ago.    Would you know that name?   http://www.jamienelson.com/tag/jamie-ne … tographer/


Adorama and B & H make MILLIONS a year and its not off of amateurs.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I can name 25 photographers off the top of my head (no puns) who make well over a million a year.   My guess is several thousand who do as well shooting fashions alone.   Many have names unknown outside of the fashion industry.   Shooters like the late Bill King were awesome but the average person wouldn't have known him and in fact several members in this thread weren't familiar with Peter.   The photographers who we most often hear of are those who shoot stars or well known models.   Folks like lindbergh and Stein and Annie are legends but there are thousands  of photographers who make bank.   Commercial is the most consistent but many of the fashion shooters do that as well.   I know a local photographer who pays over $10,000/month for a space.   I watched a kid drop $17,000 in ten minutes at Calumet Photo years ago while I fished for change for my used crap.    I was looking at Jamie Nelsons work a few days ago.    Would you know that name?   http://www.jamienelson.com/tag/jamie-ne … tographer/


Adorama and B & H make MILLIONS a year and its not off of amateurs.

Yes this I know.  I can think of lots of photographers making bank, most are not shooting editorial fashion. In my neighborhood, if one is shooting commercial (with rare exceptions) you're not getting fashion gigs. Most fashion shooters here make somewhat of a living, but they're not making bank.  A handful are killing it.  Perhaps Chicago is different (I only know one catalog shooter out here but he does very well) but in NYC the two markets do not really mix.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
...  I know a local photographer who pays over $10,000/month for a space.   I watched a kid drop $17,000 in ten minutes at Calumet Photo years ago while I fished for change for my used crap.    I was looking at Jamie Nelsons work a few days ago.    Would you know that name?   http://www.jamienelson.com/tag/jamie-ne … tographer/


Adorama and B & H make MILLIONS a year and its not off of amateurs.

Hi Tony,

As I read your reply I didn't know it was from you at first but, hit reply when I saw Calument Photo.

I know they are gone now but the mention of something from home, (Chicago,) made me want to sidebar reply.

Jen-in California!

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...

+1   of course he is worth it, its about cachet, its about a brand or name, gucci, chanel, and so on! If Scavullo charged $7,000 for a polaroid or koons and or hirst can sell something they didn't actually make for 50 million because of their name, then you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay! ....................W

Peter Hurley Photo wrote:
I've never done a reply on here so I have no idea what I'm doing. However, you guys are hilarious! I got a google alert with this and normally wouldn't answer, but my skin has grown thicker and I'm happy for you to lay into me all you want.

Just start by looking at what ST Retouch(Thanks ST Retouch) put out here. You have no idea what my overhead is or what I'm shooting commercially on a daily basis. How you can rip apart a successful photographer making it in this day and age is beyond me. Isn't this what we all want to do? I believe headshot photography is the biggest growing genre of portraiture right now, so if you don't jump onboard and do consider yourself a portrait photographer then you'll be missing a buck for sure.

Few things to clarify although this will really piss you naysayers off. I still shoot a number of actors, but most of them are my returning clients. Corporate has gotten so massive in terms of headshot photography that I've gone that route and my Headshot Crew Associates shoot a lot of the actors now. I don't know where you got that my rate was $1300. It's actually 5K for my not artistic mediocre at best work as many of you have stated. Here's my rate page: https://peterhurley.com/rates

OK, so I did it. I responded. Bring on the onslaught of crap I'm about to be hit with./


Thanks Zack. Yeah, if I cared who liked my work I wouldn't have never gotten past the agents that told me to do it differently from the get go.

For those that don't think there's enough to go around I'm telling you there is. Nail down your look and don't give a crap what people say about it as long as it's bringing in income then who the heck cares anyway.

I went from a bartender barely making ends meet to being able to raise a family in NYC strictly off of headshot photography. I'm more proud of that fact than anything else.

Giacomo, thanks for backing me up a bit and handling the nonsense. I'm sure it's not an easy task at times. I'm hoping everyone is here to up there photo game. I just found it amazing to read the thread and figured I'd say something.

Peter,  I'm thrilled for you, youre doing what many of us photographers, creatives, artists, etc, dream of doing and being appreciated for it! Congratulations! Thanks for "chiming" in with your personal opinion! Made my year!, I can't stop laughing at the look you surely have put on some of the faces here!

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
I think he's a wonderful photographer and a world-class genius at business, self-promotion, marketing.

There are photographers on MM and in major USA cities who are as skilled at photography. snip

Yep.

DAVISICON wrote:

+1   of course he is worth it, its about cachet, its about a brand or name, gucci, chanel, and so on! If Scavullo charged $7,000 for a polaroid or koons and or hirst can sell something they didn't actually make for 50 million because of their name, then you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay! ....................W

Also pretty much.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Once again MM doesn't cease to let one down...

The work Peter is promoting is not art, it's not meant to be art and he doesn't give a shit if you think it's art.  It's not meant to be an insightful portrait that explores an individual's raison d'être.  It is a commercial headshot for actors.  Essentially, it's product photography, except in this case the product is a person. 

Someone added "well, he's good at communicating with subjects" as if it were a throw away line.  That's a HUGE part of the gig.  If you don't have that, you have nothing. I don't care how good your post work is, how creative your ideas are, if you don't have that, for this type of work, you have nothing. 

Many of you seem to think that so many on here could easily do what he does; I think you are quite mistaken.  If it was that easy to do what he does, other headshot photographers would be doing that instead of the crap they produce for $500.  I'm very adept with a camera and lighting.  I use top end gear.  I'm good at what I do.  I don't think I could walk into a studio tomorrow and produce what he does.  It might look like it on the surface, but that's where the similarity would end, and it isn't the surface qualities that is getting him work (or, more appropriately stated, it isn't the surface qualities that is getting his clients work).

This.

I think a lot of people critique his work from art point of view. I look at him like a food photographer, but working with animated subjects. I also agree that maybe 90% of his success is a solid, tried and tested setup, communication with models and connections (as he has been a model before). The 10% means that he has a talent as well.

Just IMHO.

Herman Surkis wrote:
I get annoyed when some of the kids on Creative Live come off as having just invented the wheel, and discovering fire. The no nothing kids that they are preaching to may buy this, but anybody who has been around knows better. Why does this annoy me? Because it has the feel of a snake oil salesman, or someone who copies an Avedon image, and claims that they are the second coming. Or the types that go to a workshop, where the workshop instructor sets everything up, including the pose, and now the photographer posts this on their website saying how good they are.
Sorry for the tangent here.

(I did shorten your quote up a little)

?? If they do go to a workshop, learn the set up,, technically if they retain it, they are that good, nothing else but they can do that and that will happen again maybe maybe not... These are no threat to you, might made you think a little more and keep you on your toes more,,, but they will never catch you... Are you saying weekend workshop or formal eduction will catch years,, impossible...
  The old dog always holds the bag of time,, and there is a shitloads of tricks in that bag...
I haven't really looked into Peter but what I know he is training new photographers, I look at that and think it good because it will keep me on my toes, thinking, working and looking to learn new things.. Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci was,,, because he was as good as Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci,, same as Dutch painter Rembrandt,, they where not the only ones doing what they did,,  BUT I am sure you could tell the difference between the real one and another...

"the feel of a snake oil salesman or someone who copies an Avedon image, and claims that they are the second coming" How or why this gives you anxiety,, I dunno that is something only you can answer for yourself.

I would add,, the people that showed someone else how to do something,, like the how to camps like: baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, how to skate and on and on,,,, technically they are snake oil saleman??? and we all know how that works out if they go to camp and start saying they are the second coming,LOL... Karma usually kicks in pretty quickly, not saying they can't be but it is not going to happen that quickly......

Let Peter Hurley be Peter Hurley,,, he is not trying to be Herman Surkis,,  nor could he be...