login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Photographers and their rants about costs Search   Reply
1234last
Photographer
rp_photo
Posts: 42,488
Houston, Texas, US


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  Quote 
Model
Miss AY
Posts: 8,164
Portland, Maine, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
rp_photo
Posts: 42,488
Houston, Texas, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Karl JW Johnston
Posts: 9,313
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


rp_photo wrote:
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.

Is that supposed to impress people?

wink

Oct 10 12 09:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


rp_photo wrote:
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?

I usually see these rants as quite opposite from the OP's intended purpose...to impress.

Quite the opposite.

Announcing you spent 6 figures at a questionable art institute is an admission of poor decision-making.

And I usually view the work of someone who says "Yo! I spent $25k on this stuff!" and think, "...and THAT'S the best you could do with it?"

Oct 10 12 09:44 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Angela Perez
Posts: 340
Orlando, Florida, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
-Koa-
Posts: 5,250
Castaner, Puerto Rico, US


rp_photo wrote:
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.

I'm impressed!

Not really, but I figured you needed the ego boost.

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com
www.facebook.com/borikenwarriorstudiosmodels

Oct 10 12 09:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RacerXPhoto
Posts: 2,457
Brooklyn, New York, US


Why did I know this thread was started by a photographer before I clicked on the link ?
Oct 10 12 09:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


RacerXPhoto wrote:
Why did I know this thread was started by a photographer before I clicked on the link ?

Because you're Madam Cleo in another life?

Oct 10 12 09:46 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Miss AY
Posts: 8,164
Portland, Maine, US


RacerXPhoto wrote:
Why did I know this thread was started by a photographer before I clicked on the link ?

I'm going to take a wild guess that the fact that the OP has "photo" in their username might have tipped you off.

But that's just a guess.

Oct 10 12 09:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ThriftyPhoto
Posts: 21
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada


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  Quote 
Model
ChaiNoir
Posts: 345
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


KlassyKlix wrote:
Bragging about the cost of equipment seems silly. I don't hear models bragging about their expensive clothes.

trrrrue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oct 10 12 09:55 am  Link  Quote 
Model
ChaiNoir
Posts: 345
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


KlassyKlix wrote:
Bragging about the cost of equipment seems silly. I don't hear models bragging about their expensive clothes.

trrrrue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oct 10 12 09:55 am  Link  Quote 
Model
ChaiNoir
Posts: 345
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


KlassyKlix wrote:
Bragging about the cost of equipment seems silly. I don't hear models bragging about their expensive clothes.

trrrrue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oct 10 12 09:55 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bold Sheep Photography
Posts: 234
Blacksburg, Virginia, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Image Works Photography
Posts: 2,890
Orlando, Florida, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Fotopia
Posts: 1,078
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Angela Perez wrote:
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

So just tell them, no I ain't went no school, and forget about them.

Oct 10 12 10:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Loki Studio
Posts: 2,876
Royal Oak, Michigan, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
rp_photo
Posts: 42,488
Houston, Texas, US


Ms Jaime-BoldSheepPhoto wrote:
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.

Me and him would probably not get along from the start.

I'm just as much a "reverse snob".

I'm most proud of all of not taking myself too seriously and having fun playing photographer.

Oct 10 12 10:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ed Woodson Photography
Posts: 2,644
Savannah, Georgia, US


Troll post of the day.   Getting Popcorn ready.  :-)
Oct 10 12 10:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
robert b mitchell
Posts: 1,217
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


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  Quote 
Photographer
MDWM
Posts: 520
Los Angeles, California, US


rp_photo wrote:
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?

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  Quote 
Photographer
fullmetalphotographer
Posts: 2,671
Fresno, California, US


rp_photo wrote:
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?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8030/7969927708_5566b5968e.jpg
gear by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr

Sorry I could not resist throwing a gear picture up. If you look through the cameras are 2 Nikon D3 and a D2x hardly state of the art plus lenses that are over 10 years old. What is important is that it works and is reliable.

As for my education I did junior and a 4 year college. I majored in photojournalism and minored in photography. Now if you what a good laugh did that for a career in photojournalism in which the pay is around $25,000-35,000 a year. So a high school janitor makes more than the average photojournalist. wink

These days I shoot editorial and commercial. If a possible employer asks about my experience and background I have no issue with telling about my education. I don't see it as a negative.

One thing I learned while photographing the NFL and major news events there is always someone with a bigger badder system, what does matter is what you do with what you have.

Oct 10 12 10:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Backstreet Photography2
Posts: 50
Salem, Oregon, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Woven Thought
Posts: 329
Petersburg, Virginia, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 5,232
San Diego, California, US


rp_photo wrote:
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?

When you roll up to a job and unload shitloads of equipment, yes, it impresses people.

I've assisted on plenty of jobs where we simply set up stands with lights, set out packs, etc, etc, knowing full well we were going to shoot with one light only, strictly for the dog and pony show. Yes it impresses people. No, I don't like it that it does but that's the reality.

Oct 10 12 10:44 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Jordan Bunniie
Posts: 1,617
Los Angeles, California, US


Augustine York wrote:
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.

agreed 100%

Oct 10 12 10:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Innovative Imagery
Posts: 2,815
Los Angeles, California, US


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  Quote 
Model
LizzyB
Posts: 2,174
Rochester, New York, US


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! tongue


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  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,780
Olivet, Michigan, US


rp_photo wrote:
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?

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  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,263
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


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  Quote 
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24,315
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US


rp_photo wrote:
Doing what I can with "very low 5 figures" worth of gear.

posts rant about people bragging, about how much they spent...
then brags about how much he spent...

i love this place...

http://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png

Oct 10 12 10:52 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,780
Olivet, Michigan, US


Loki Studio wrote:
The only thing that should impress anybody is the quality of your portfolio. End of story.

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  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,780
Olivet, Michigan, US


RKD Photographic wrote:
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.

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  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 862
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Woven Thought wrote:
I took some great photos with my Pentax K-1000 with the basic lens.

Almost my entire port was taken with one of those.
I might upgrade to an ME Super one day if I feel like splashing out the cash.... big_smile

Oct 10 12 10:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Select Models
Posts: 35,293
Upland, California, US


rp_photo wrote:
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?

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... wink

Oct 10 12 11:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


ChiMo wrote:
When you roll up to a job and unload shitloads of equipment, yes, it impresses people.

I've assisted on plenty of jobs where we simply set up stands with lights, set out packs, etc, etc, knowing full well we were going to shoot with one light only, strictly for the dog and pony show. Yes it impresses people. No, I don't like it that it does but that's the reality.

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.

But the photographers who try that when the audience is other industry professionals who know better...well that just silly.

Oct 10 12 11:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rp_photo
Posts: 42,488
Houston, Texas, US


ChiMo wrote:
When you roll up to a job and unload shitloads of equipment, yes, it impresses people.

I've assisted on plenty of jobs where we simply set up stands with lights, set out packs, etc, etc, knowing full well we were going to shoot with one light only, strictly for the dog and pony show. Yes it impresses people. No, I don't like it that it does but that's the reality.

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  Quote 
Photographer
howard r
Posts: 467
Los Angeles, California, US


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  Quote 
Photographer
rp_photo
Posts: 42,488
Houston, Texas, US


howard r wrote:
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.

I fit all to a tee except for c)

If my photography was as bad as my buisiness and negotiating skills, I'd probably be kicked off MM.

Oct 10 12 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
1234last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers