|
Forums >
General Industry >
Photographers and their rants about costs
We've all read the rants about how much photographers spend on equipment and software, but the latest I saw also made mention of how they spent almost 6 figures on an education at a questionable local art institute. Is that supposed to impress people? Oct 10 12 09:29 am Link Yup. That's the only thing I can figure - they are trying to impress and convince that they are 'Professionals' due to how much money they've dropped on equipment, classes etc etc. I take that ish with a grain of salt. From what I've seen, the ones who make a big flap about how much $ they drop and how they've been a photographer for a billion years generally don't have work to back it up. And those with great work just continue being awesome and don't make a stink about what costs they incur. Oct 10 12 09:31 am Link I am proud of: Being self-taught and spending virtually nothing on education. Doing what I can with "very low 5 figures" worth of gear. Never taking pay. Paying worthy models more and more. Oct 10 12 09:34 am Link rp_photo wrote: Is that supposed to impress people? Oct 10 12 09:37 am Link rp_photo wrote: I usually see these rants as quite opposite from the OP's intended purpose...to impress. Oct 10 12 09:44 am Link I hate it when people ask me did you went to school for photography/retouching when I tell them no they seem to think I'm less professional because I wasn't taught by an institution. Meh Oct 10 12 09:45 am Link rp_photo wrote: I'm impressed! Oct 10 12 09:45 am Link Why did I know this thread was started by a photographer before I clicked on the link ? Oct 10 12 09:45 am Link RacerXPhoto wrote: Because you're Madam Cleo in another life? Oct 10 12 09:46 am Link RacerXPhoto wrote: I'm going to take a wild guess that the fact that the OP has "photo" in their username might have tipped you off. Oct 10 12 09:50 am Link Bragging about the cost of equipment seems silly. I don't hear models bragging about their expensive clothes. Oct 10 12 09:53 am Link KlassyKlix wrote: trrrrue!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oct 10 12 09:55 am Link KlassyKlix wrote: trrrrue!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oct 10 12 09:55 am Link KlassyKlix wrote: trrrrue!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oct 10 12 09:55 am Link I have a photographer friend who is a "photo snob." He thinks anyone who hasn't gone to photography school - regardless of how talented the person is - is just "playing" at being a photographer. I know self-taught people who's work blows that guy's out of the water. He's just trying to justify paying thousands of dollars when there are people who are born with a creative vision and a natural ability to learn the technical parts to make that vision happen. Education and equipment don't make a photo good. It takes creativity. Oct 10 12 09:58 am Link I never would think of going to school to learn photography. There is so many books and videos with minimal investment to learn the trade. For my first studio shoot I went to you tube to get a brush on the skill. Bought a modest used minolta hand light meter- got the model and met at the studio. Followed all steps and got great results. I even used different light setups all with great results. I do have 5 figure equipment but nobody cares because its the final product thats going to sell. Oct 10 12 10:01 am Link Angela Perez wrote: So just tell them, no I ain't went no school, and forget about them. Oct 10 12 10:04 am Link The only thing that should impress anybody is the quality of your portfolio. End of story. All rants about how much or how little you have invested are equally stupid. Just like paying models based on how much clothing they are wearing. Clients and models pay me to make photos that will generate income. Feel free to make photos for any reason or purpose, but complaining about complainers is not a great use of time. Oct 10 12 10:07 am Link Ms Jaime-BoldSheepPhoto wrote: Me and him would probably not get along from the start. Oct 10 12 10:09 am Link Troll post of the day. Getting Popcorn ready. :-) Oct 10 12 10:13 am Link So many egos to contend with. It will never end "the I AM better than you" syndrome. Just take the darn photos. Oct 10 12 10:16 am Link rp_photo wrote: When people rant about the money they've invested in their craft, e.g., photographer, MUA, carpenter, musician, etc..... it means they're NOT making money to justify the investment. Oct 10 12 10:23 am Link rp_photo wrote:
Oct 10 12 10:23 am Link I'd be inclined to take that same "6 figures", buy an insane car, Canon's BEST kit, Nikon's BEST kit and spend my time driving the coastline. Who cares what people think about our work/equipment. Most of us enjoy photography for ourselves. People that have to brag, are just empty inside and need a reason to feel fulfilled. An empty barrel makes the most noise ~~~ m' Oct 10 12 10:40 am Link I took some great photos with my Pentax K-1000 with the basic lens. I got a degree in Education but it didn't help me much at all. My student teaching was the only thing that really helped. DOING something, experience, that's useful. Great equipment and education are helpful, but if you're a good photographer, I don't think you'd be flaunting those things when your skill should be even better. My two cents. Oct 10 12 10:43 am Link rp_photo wrote: When you roll up to a job and unload shitloads of equipment, yes, it impresses people. Oct 10 12 10:44 am Link Augustine York wrote: agreed 100% Oct 10 12 10:48 am Link I think there are more than a couple of snobs projecting their opinions on this topic. Many models don't have expensive clothes, they are supplied by the client or stylist. Most I have seen lately have pretty crappy clothes, totally not suitable for photography. I think most of the time the "cost of a photographer's investment" comes up is during the discussion of the amount of value models and/or photographers bring to the table for a TF shoot. Model pundits will say models are equal in contribution and when challenged WILL bring up their gym memberships, clothes, cosmetics, etc.. Photographers on the other hand will point to not only their substantially higher investment with regards to cameras, lighting, software, computers, studio costs, etc., but to their much higher investment in time, both in training and practice (equivalent to gym memberships and dance classes), but also to time directly spent on the shoot with prep and post production. Bottom line, while neither investments will guarantee top performance in the shoot, it is pretty hard to realistically argue an equal investment of both parties on most shoots. And it would be totally foolish for a photographer or any businessman to ignore their costs and fail to incorporate that understanding in their pricing and other practices. It is standard business practice to set a value for your work that includes coverage of direct costs, overhead and some profit. Let's say that equals $100 per hour. That is about the same as most models charge for their time on a shoot. If for no other reason than that, it isn't inappropriate for a photographer to be able to have the model release allow the potential, but not guaranteed possibility of future sales to offset his/her costs. Oct 10 12 10:48 am Link a bit off-topic, but personally i'd probably have to go to school for it because i am not good at learning anything on my own lol BUT i've known a lot of of fabulous photographers that were self-taught. bastards!  edit: the one thing that gets to me about photographer's bitching is, well yes, they generally do spend more money. but once they make an initial investment, they can use the camera and gear for X amount of years. whereas a model has to spend more money on each shoot, for a MUA/hairstylist and possibly a new outfit if she doesn't want to re-use stuff she's already worn. it isn't an initial investment but an ongoing investment. that being said, a photographer can use his investment in multiple venues and possibly faces greater monetary returns over time: models, special events, weddings. again a model pays per shoot. Oct 10 12 10:49 am Link rp_photo wrote: I was recently told that I should pay someone because of how expensive it is to be a llama, and her portfolio is "full." Oct 10 12 10:50 am Link Try turning up to a corporate shoot or a wedding and whipping out an iPhone... Pretty hard to justify the client paying you £2k if you did... Equipment purchase and wear and tear/depreciation should be factored into a pro's pricing schedule - if you don't, you're an idiot. Oct 10 12 10:51 am Link rp_photo wrote: posts rant about people bragging, about how much they spent... Oct 10 12 10:52 am Link Loki Studio wrote: It's remarkable how often people consider having gotten paid or published, even for unrelated genre's, or decades ago, as proof of their superiority. Oct 10 12 10:56 am Link RKD Photographic wrote: Taking it into consideration, and using it as the reason people should pay you are totally different things. Oct 10 12 10:57 am Link Woven Thought wrote: Almost my entire port was taken with one of those. Oct 10 12 10:57 am Link rp_photo wrote: You can spend literally millions on education... digital cameras... speedlights and lenses... studio lighting... backgrounds and fixtures... siminars and workshops... props and wardrobe... BUT... if you don't market and advertize yourself effectively... you might as well just flush all that money down the shitter... Oct 10 12 11:07 am Link ChiMo wrote: I get that and yes it's a part of the show (well put) for the CLIENT. Not necessarily to impress them but also to give them some peace of mind that they've made a wise investment. Setting up lots of equipment gives the perception that they're getting something more than Anita in Human Resources and her Digital Rebel. All perception. Oct 10 12 11:21 am Link ChiMo wrote: Anyone who shoots with me has already been impressed, and it works to our advantage to look as unimpressive as possible to others. Oct 10 12 11:33 am Link op is missing the point the reality is most artists are a) not wired for business, b) not always the most self-confident people, c) usually relatively young. these three factors usually mean artists tend to be absolutely terrible negotiators. they're awkward about money, embarrassed about standing up for themselves, and they don't yet have real world financial realities like keeping up the family's health insurance while making house payments and putting 2 kids through college. as a result, artists often need to be hit over the head with "remember how much goes into the cost of every photograph you take! it's not just the $35 dollars you spent today. it's also the tens of thousands of dollars you spent yesterday." and of course - mm being what it is - when they finally do speak out, they get jumped on by other photographers for bragging too much. it would be kinda of funny if it weren't so depressing . . . Oct 10 12 11:37 am Link howard r wrote: I fit all to a tee except for c) Oct 10 12 11:47 am Link |
