S W I N S K E Y wrote:

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

i love this place...

That is ironic...yes

David Desoer wrote:
How much is skill at your trade/craft/art and how much is interpersonal skills?

Bingo!  You need to be able to deal with people and inspire confidence.  Really important.

Art of the nude wrote:

Taking it into consideration, and using it as the reason people should pay you are totally different things.

Same thing surely? I 'consider' it along with other factors when pricing up a job.

Assume my lenses have a service-life of 12 years and the camera bodies five years.
Studio flash eqpt should last 15 years if looked after. Take all that divide it up and add it to your annual outgoing expenses along with studio rent, vehicle costs (tax, insurance, depreciation etc.) household bills, food, clothing, kid's education, college fund, etc...

Then decide how much you're going to pay yourself as well as how much profit you actually want to make in order to make your business grow.

Then you work out how many hours you need to work in order to cover all those expenses... All of that has to be factored-in when arriving at an hourly rate for a job.

That's if you're a professional doing this as your sole means of income.

If it's just a hobby, then do what you like, I don't care.

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.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Far toooo true.

I deal mostly with families.  Just a lens hood inspires awe.    (I'm not kidding)

Woven Thought wrote:

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 deal mostly with families.  Just a lens hood inspires awe.    (I'm not kidding)

lol! It's true. I once had a dual commercial shoot and even though my photos were better in the end, I was outshined during the process by the lady with the lens hood. Inside, in a dark location.

Woven Thought wrote:
I deal mostly with families.  Just a lens hood inspires awe.    (I'm not kidding)

KonstantKarma wrote:
lol! It's true. I once had a dual commercial shoot and even though my photos were better in the end, I was outshined during the process by the lady with the lens hood. Inside, in a dark location.

That does it. I'm gonna find the lens hood for my 35-70mm this weekend!

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

Because you're Madam Cleo in another life?

Wait just one minute here, madam Cleo is dead?
😳

Art of the nude wrote:
Taking it into consideration, and using it as the reason people should pay you are totally different things.

RKD Photographic wrote:
Same thing surely?

No, not the same thing.  I'm never going to pay you because of your costs, so don't waste time using it as a reason why you should be paid.  I'm going to pay you because of the perceived value of the work that you produce.  If someone is doing this as a business, then hopefully they will produce work of perceived value sufficient to get paid more than their costs.

Shayne F wrote:

Wait just one minute here, madam Cleo is dead?
😳

Dunno. You could call her up and see...

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
If I had the money I would definitely go to a photography school, set up a fully equipped studio, hire awesome teams... And yes, I would market all of this in a way that puts my business above the average joe photographer.

I have no reason to hate on anyone who is fortunate enough to have everything that I want.

Now here's a good attitude.  Realism.  Unless you are one of the fortunate who's parent has left them equipment/a business or just wealthy to begin with, we all start with the minimal basics. 
Some schools used to require that students have or purchase their own medium format cameras for class.  That in itself is a pretty hard requirement when you're young, poor and paying for college.  More equipment comes with the money you make as you go along.

Garry k wrote:
I try and keep my Fashion Creatives to $30

( which is the amount i pay my MUA for her /his kit fee )


I have no education with respect to photography ( once tried to take an evening adult ed introductory course but had to drop out cus the field trips interfered with the fashion shows and concerts i was shooting )

Minimal Equipment Cost - Rebel , 17-85 lense , Hensel Strobe ( but i am thinking of upgrading the camera )

Generally borrow a friends studio to shoot at

And yet you still take (IMHO) very nice images. Must be magic!

Robert Lynch wrote:

No, not the same thing.  I'm never going to pay you because of your costs, so don't waste time using it as a reason why you should be paid.  I'm going to pay you because of the perceived value of the work that you produce.  If someone is doing this as a business, then hopefully they will produce work of perceived value sufficient to get paid more than their costs.

Yes it is: the price I set for my work will be arrived-at as a result of a breakdown of all the things I listed above - I certainly won't list all that shit to you and say "this is why you must pay me $XXXX", I'll just tell you my hourly/daily rates and you either accept it, negotiate or go elsewhere. But they do have an influence on how I arrive at those rates in the first place.

RKD Photographic wrote:
Yes it is: the price I set for my work will be arrived-at as a result of a breakdown of all the things I listed above - I certainly won't list all that shit to you and say "this is why you must pay me $XXXX", I'll just tell you my hourly/daily rates and you either accept it, negotiate or go elsewhere. But they do have an influence on how I arrive at those rates in the first place.

Sigh.

Your cost structure will of course have an impact on your rates.  It will never have any impact on whether anyone will actually pay those rates.

You, nor anyone else, do not deserve to be paid because you have costs.  You deserve to be paid if, and only if, you produce adequate results.

Robert Lynch wrote:

Sigh.

Your cost structure will of course have an impact on your rates.  It will never have any impact on whether anyone will actually pay those rates.

You, nor anyone else, do not deserve to be paid because you have costs.  You deserve to be paid if, and only if, you produce adequate results.

*sigh*
'Deserve' doesn't enter into it - this discussion wasn't about whether our work merits the prices we charge, only how we arrive at those charges in the first place - equipments costs are one of the many variables that should be taken into account when formulating a tarriff...

Clients hire me because of the work I do - true. What I choose to charge those clients is arrived-at because of all the reasons listed earlier.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
First off not only as photographers but any business most recoup their expenses. There are always people that say the cost of your equipment does not matter. Well, basically speaking that’s a line of horse shit. 

Now, we don't need to run out and tell our clients how much money we've spent on equipment. We don't need to explain how much we paid software. And we don't need to tell them how much our education costs if there was a cost for that. However if you want to be successful from a financial standpoint you must get this money back.

Our cost of doing business includes everything from your camera's to your lenses to computers software run on computers all the way down to Post-it notes and paperclips. If you do not include these in your final billing cost you are doomed to fail and file bankruptcy. That's the bottom line and the end of the story.

To complain about things with the fellow industry professionals? People it happens. Of course we should always try and keep a positive attitude.  We should never discuss trivial things like this with their clients. We should also try to subdue them in their own minds but people talk about things that bother them with their colleagues. Get over it.

What he said (and paraphrasing what I said earlier, in case no-one was paying attention)...

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
First off not only as photographers but any business most recoup their expenses. There are always people that say the cost of your equipment does not matter. Well, basically speaking that’s a line of horse shit.

More sighing.

You care about your costs.  Your accountant, if you use one, cares about your costs.  If things go completely to hell, your tax attorney and bankruptcy attorney will care about your costs.

No one else will ever care about your costs.

The problem is not people who care about their own costs.  The problem is the photographers who periodically insist that they deserve to be paid because of those costs.  That's the line of horse shit.  Needing to be paid and deserving to be paid are two different things.  Spending money on a camera, lights, software, props, etc. does not automatically entitle the purchaser to anyone's money in return for photographs.  This particularly comes up in rants about TF* arrangements.  So many photographers complain about "working for free" (a misnomer) after spending so much, without any thought given to whether they have the skill and experience to justify charging any money at all, regardless of costs.

Money is paid for value produced, not because of costs.

RKD Photographic wrote:

*sigh*
'Deserve' doesn't enter into it - this discussion wasn't about whether our work merits the prices we charge, only how we arrive at those charges in the first place

Actually, this thread isn't about that, either.  It's just a rant about photographers ranting about costs.  It's also serving to illustrate that MM is a group of groups, that mostly only see things from the perspective of their own groups and are largely blind to the rest.

"My gear costs money, damnit" rants here don't just come from full time pros.  They come from part timers/hobbiests who present their indignation at being asked to do TF* from a sense of entitlement born of costs incurred, regardless of value offered.  These are the rants that are usually poorly received and generally end badly for the originator.

Costs don't matter to anyone except the person incurring them.  Expecting to use them to sway the behaviors of others is a waste of time.  If costs are the best argument that anyone can muster for charging money, then they are doomed.  This is what people mean when they say costs don't matter.

Garry k wrote:
I try and keep my Fashion Creatives to $30

( which is the amount i pay my MUA for her /his kit fee )

send me this MUA, that's cheap as hell.

Robert Lynch wrote:

Actually, this thread isn't about that, either.  It's just a rant about photographers ranting about costs.  It's also serving to illustrate that MM is a group of groups, that mostly only see things from the perspective of their own groups and are largely blind to the rest.

"My gear costs money, damnit" rants here don't just come from full time pros.  They come from part timers/hobbiests who present their indignation at being asked to do TF* from a sense of entitlement born of costs incurred, regardless of value offered.  These are the rants that are usually poorly received and generally end badly for the originator.

Costs don't matter to anyone except the person incurring them.  Expecting to use them to sway the behaviors of others is a waste of time.  If costs are the best argument that anyone can muster for charging money, then they are doomed.  This is what people mean when they say costs don't matter.

OK that I agree with...

...although... while this thread may not have begun life that way, it has morphed into something else - as is often the case...
Case in point - any thread mentioning under-18 models in any context will degenerate in two pages or less into what age-of-consent laws are relevent in what states regardless of whether the OP was a US-poster or from Ulaan Bator...
David Hamilton lived in France for the very good reason that had he persued his career in the UK, he'd have probably gone to jail.
Only last month, a 30-something British Schoolteacher absconded with a 15-year old pupil to France.
French police initially said there was nothing they could do as the age of consent in France is 15. Only when an international arrest warrant was produced a week later, did the French authorities react and detain the couple.

But I digress. So hopefully we agree - while equipment costs are a valid means to working out the overall costs that you should charge - that doesn't mean you are necessarliy entitled to that - or any - amount.

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.

do you think your portfolio reflects the first and second statements?

are you being offered enough pay to quit your day job and live comfortably off photography?

where are you getting the money to pay models to work with you, is it your day job? Did you have any education for your day job that pays for your hobby? How much was that education? Would you expect to do as well in your day job without that education?

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

But I have heard about the cost of some body modifications. 

George Ruge wrote:

But in private, I've heard them bragg about the cost of their ( @ Y @ )'s :-)))))

Hehe...
I've actually heard this, too.

David Sheldrick wrote:
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is how well you can use a camera.

I thought is was about how well you can convince others you use the camera well...

AJScalzitti wrote:
I thought is was about how well you can convince others you use the camera well...

Thats only if the work cant speak for itself.

A photographer trying to convince others he knows how to use a camera well sounds more like insecurity to me.

David Sheldrick wrote:
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is how well you can use a camera.

AJScalzitti wrote:
I thought is was about how well you can convince others you use the camera well...

David Sheldrick wrote:
Thats only if the work cant speak for itself.

A photographer trying to convince others he knows how to use a camera well sounds more like insecurity to me.

I think AJ’s point is that someone who is a crack marketer can make a good living selling crap photography – while there are master photographers who can’t seem to make a living with a camera. We’ve all seen it happen.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
First off not only as photographers but any business most recoup their expenses. There are always people that say the cost of your equipment does not matter. Well, basically speaking that’s a line of horse shit. 

Now, we don't need to run out and tell our clients how much money we've spent on equipment. We don't need to explain how much we paid software. And we don't need to tell them how much our education costs if there was a cost for that. However if you want to be successful from a financial standpoint you must get this money back.

Our cost of doing business includes everything from your camera's to your lenses to computers software run on computers all the way down to Post-it notes and paperclips. If you do not include these in your final billing cost you are doomed to fail and file bankruptcy. That's the bottom line and the end of the story.

To complain about things with the fellow industry professionals? People it happens. Of course we should always try and keep a positive attitude.  We should never discuss trivial things like this with their clients. We should also try to subdue them in their own minds but people talk about things that bother them with their colleagues. Get over it.

In saying that, your work is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. You have to be worth more than your expenses, otherwise you have wasted your money buying more than you can afford....... or you are the owner of a nice fun hobby!

Karl Johnston wrote:

Is that supposed to impress people?

Darn it, You said it before me! `

Herman Surkis wrote:
Speculation here.
If I am a lawyer billing $500 dollars per hour.
And you are a waitress making $17/hr.
And we both take time off to shoot.
Whose time is more valuable?

I know this is a hypothetical, but interesting in it, I am a waitress:)

If you are a lawyer, then you would have more money to pay me I'd figure.

... then again, I haven't reached the 'cred' *chuckles* where I make an exorbitant rate as a fashion photographer just so I can remove myself from the boring trysts and blah de blah with full teams so I can just shoot vaginas spread eagle in my apartment.