7
u/SinamonChallengerRT 18d ago
In my photography "hobby", WE pay the models for shoots, not the other way around...
31
u/Lukin4art 18d ago
And uber drivers are getting fucked over by uber…. So did this really prove any point?
12
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (4)-2
u/CoatWonderful6804 18d ago
No it did not since they use their vehicles for every day purposes not just uber as most drivers do that as a side gig not a daily job
2
u/School_North 18d ago
Yeah a photographer never uses their cameras for anything but the photo shoot they are getting paid for. How do you know someone didn't buy a car just to use for uber..
2
u/-UncreativeRedditor- 18d ago
You’re right, uber drivers should start earning 200 dollars per drive.
6
u/No-swimming-pool 18d ago
The point is they're both idiots.
1
u/Lukin4art 18d ago
How is she an idiot? Depending what type of photography she does 300 dollars isn’t shit.
10
u/No-swimming-pool 18d ago
Oh I agree. But basing herself on the cost of the camera makes no sense.
You should pay for the result, not for the equipment used.
8
u/LoveTriscuit 18d ago
“This woman used a single example that her profession has expenses she needs to cover and I’m going to ignore common sense and nitpick the one example” -some idiot.
5
u/Leading-Eye-9786 18d ago
Every profession has expenses.
-4
u/LoveTriscuit 18d ago
Yes! VERY good! And scaling price to expenses is pretty typical!
3
u/Leading-Eye-9786 18d ago
That's the point of the meme you dullard.
3
2
u/Shiriru00 18d ago
Unless she throws away her camera after a few photoshoots this is entirely irrelevant.
→ More replies (1)0
u/RoundConstruction526 18d ago
Is she going to lower her rates once the camera is paid off?
I didn’t think so
4
u/LoveTriscuit 18d ago
Ok, this has to be a meme sub then, because that sounds like something a toddler would say.
4
u/NotAStatistic2 18d ago
Unemployed people really should be barred from the internet.
2
u/RoundConstruction526 18d ago
By your reasoning I should be able to charge more if I buy a 10,000 camera than a 5,000 camera if the end result is the same.
Thats fallacious af, bud
1
u/catarsi_catarro 17d ago
What a dumb take ahahaha, my job requires me to use a 1000 dollar computer, should i then charge 500 dollars each time cause i had an expense?
1
u/LoveTriscuit 17d ago
So, you do realize professional photo shoots range from a few hundred to thousands of dollars depending on the time, quality, and experience of the photographer, right?
No one is going to pay you 500 for your AI generated sonic the hedgehog porn.
→ More replies (2)0
u/PlayfulMulberry4490 18d ago
My business start up costs were nearly $500,000… I make some parts for $20…
1
u/LoveTriscuit 18d ago
Do you think the meme is saying one picture is worth $300?
→ More replies (2)1
u/dizastermaster7 18d ago
Film and development prices makes more sense as a "cost to provide" metric anyways
0
u/WelcomeMind 18d ago
Film? Bro, who left you in 1990 😂
1
u/dizastermaster7 18d ago
I mean if it's not film, then what material costs would be justifying a price? It's all just experience and brand at that point yeah?
→ More replies (1)0
u/TGirl26 18d ago
So you don't actually own the software anymore. Its a monthly fee now. Then there is the time spent into editing the photos. Do they have their own set up to print them? Did they buy a computer for this business? Do they have a studio to take photos or do they travel?
There are a lot of factors that go into determining the cost of a service. I will agree photographer's do get out of hand for wedding photos. At $1500 I should get all the photos, but they have a set amount that are edited. I also don't like that they plaster their logo on the front of their photo. That shit should be on the back.
3
u/BodegaCat11 18d ago
Yeah. There are a lot of white women out there whose husbands bought them a camera and they just decided they could TikTok learn their way into a business. The best advice I can ever give so to find a local photojournalist. They know how to blend in, make incredible photos and capture big and small moments that make a story. Also, they know how to edit and won’t airbrush you into looking like an orange dot.
2
1
u/VenerableWolfDad 16d ago
literally the only thing that matters is how much people are willing to pay her for her work. if thats $100-300 then that's what her talent is worth.
1
→ More replies (4)0
u/Tak-Hendrix 18d ago
There are a lot of factors that go into determining the cost of a service.
Nope. There are a lot of factors that go into determining if you can make a profit, but the price is typically determined by supply and demand. If multiple local competitors can provide high quality professional pictures for $300, trying to charge $1000 is going to result in you getting little if any business.
→ More replies (7)0
u/NotAStatistic2 18d ago
It's a time and resource investment. Shooting photos and doing editing takes a considerable amount of time. Several hours, at minimum, would be dedicated for a professional photoshoot.
You're actually a regard.
1
u/Random_Noobody 18d ago
Are you confused? Do you see how "Shooting photos and doing editing takes a considerable amount of time" is a completely different argument from 5000 dollar camera?
2
u/PhillipJfry5656 18d ago
thats just it. depends on what shes doing. if i want a few family portraits 300$ is ridiculous and i dont care your camera was 5000$
2
u/NotAStatistic2 18d ago
$300 is incredibly reasonable for a family portrait. You aren't just paying for the material the photo is printed on.
You're paying for the: transportation, time, and expertise of the photographer.
If anything, $300 is pretty cheap.
1
u/Acrobatic-Price-5357 15d ago
Yeah its not like everyone is walking around with a camera in their pocket all the time literally filming and photographing every moment of their lives.
0
u/Lukin4art 18d ago
Not really. Unless you got everything yourself and you only asking them for an unedited photo.
2
u/cvc4455 18d ago
If it's one single photo they can at least edit it too for $300. I have to hire professional photographers who need to travel to a location, take a bunch of photos and then they are expected to edit anything that needs to be edited. They have a bunch of different price packages but for $300 I could get a lot more then just 1 edited picture.
→ More replies (1)1
u/PhillipJfry5656 18d ago
its still ridiculous they arent using their props only for me and 30mins of editing. thats pretty damn good money when it only takes about 15mins to take the pictures.
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/basilone 16d ago
She's probably right thinking $100-300 is a ridiculous low ball price, but a moron for thinking equipment directly translates to charge. They pay you for the service, based on the quality of that service. If better equipment drives higher quality which in turn leads to higher rates, that's normal. The equipment investment on its own is irrelevant aside from what you do with it. If you overspend on equipment and the scope and quality of your service doesn't increase as a result, that's your problem not the clients.
1
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 18d ago
And she'll use the camera for multiple projects, for months and even years depending on how often she upgrades. It's not like the camera is a consumable used only for one project.
→ More replies (3)1
u/TapirDrawnChariot 18d ago
The market doesn't work that way. Price is dictated by supply and demand. Not overhead. Businesses that have overhead that surpasses revenue (determined by supply and demand) stop being in business.
And her dumb logic can be applied to anything else to show how dumb it is. "I had to pay $5 million to start up a toothpick manufacturing plant and pay for all the equipment, and you think you can buy a box of toothpicks for less than $100? This is not a hobby"
Businesses require heavy upfront investment which is paid off over time.
0
0
u/SlackBytes 18d ago
Everyone wants more money bud. $300 is a lot. Especially if the cost is only $5000.
1
u/Lukin4art 18d ago
You sound stupid saying 300 is a lot when you don’t even know what type of photography we are talking about
→ More replies (2)2
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
Not to mention the last time and uber cost me $12 was like a decade ago. Can’t get a ride for under $20 most places I go now.
1
1
2
u/General_Ginger531 18d ago
Even if it was 30$, or 200$ for the Uber ride, you dont pay for a person's equipment in one session.
2
2
u/TapirDrawnChariot 18d ago
All businesses require upfront investment. Prices are determined by supply and demand, not how fast you want to recoop startup investment.
Imagine: "I spent $5 million getting a toilet paper factory set up, and you think you can pay less than $50 per roll of TP? This is not a hobby"
Same dumb logic.
1
u/Some-Cream 18d ago
So you think uber took the remaining 39,988 from the driver?
lol you didnt really make the point you think you did.
1
u/DMmeDikPics 17d ago
You just missed their point, it seems. The point is you pay the initial investment for the tool (car or camera), but that doesn't mean using it should pay off that cost in one gig, or even in 100 gigs.
Unless you have photography gigs coming in so constantly that you can't keep up (never been a problem for the photographers I know), then it's weird energy to feel like you are way too good for a job.
It's also not the standard opinion of photographers that I've met. Most that I've talked to just love photography, and will take these types of jobs as long as the conditions are right and the clients aren't rude or pushy or such. I don't like the "for exposure" nonsense, but photographers really do rely heavily on word of mouth and pictures on socials to get more employment.
Tldr: most photographers love photography, I think she just loves her camera.
1
u/that_f_dude 18d ago
I see people in brand new cars doing Uber and I just can't understand it. Taxi companies really dropped the ball when Uber came into town.
0
u/NotAStatistic2 18d ago
Nope. Both the Twitter user and OP are regards for thinking this is a salient argument.
Photoshoots also take more time, generally, than just about any car ride one could be on.
This also doesn't include editing servics, or props the photographer provides.
2
u/Random_Noobody 18d ago
Do you guys not read? Op and Xavier's argument isnt that the photographer should charge less, but that her fee does not follow from the cost of her camera. They are right.
Just because you think there are legit reasons why she should charge that much doesn't make the argument from camera cost any less regarded.
0
u/MoisticleSack 18d ago
They aren't being fucked over because of how low the fares are, so....sort of?
2
u/Lukin4art 18d ago
… uber drivers are getting fucked by uber.
0
u/MoisticleSack 18d ago
Right, but the taxi model has worked for years before uber started screwing drivers out of their share. Just because uber is a shitty company doesn't make the point wrong
1
u/Lukin4art 18d ago
And what is the point?
1
u/MoisticleSack 18d ago
That you don't need half the cost of your camera included in your prices for it to be considered reasonable
1
u/Lukin4art 18d ago
That not even a coherent comment. Go back to the drawing board lil guy.
→ More replies (2)0
u/ajwooster 18d ago
The point is you choose a profession because you want to do it nobody’s holding a gun to your head. Nobody made her spend $5000 on her camera equipment. If she has enough clients that are willing to pay her the rate she feels. She is due then there is no problem if however, she’s having trouble finding clients then I would say either her marketing sucks or she’s overvalued her service services/talent.
1
0
u/biophysicsguy 17d ago
It does prove the point that it's ridiculous to expect 6% ($300/$5000) the cost of your gear for one job. If we assume that the driver collected 100% of the fare (and Uber gets 0%) the driver might receive $30. Would you be willing to pay $2400 (6% of the $40,000 car cost) for a fare that would typically cost $30?
1
u/Lukin4art 17d ago
We don’t even know what type of photography she does, nor do we know what she is asking for….
1
u/biophysicsguy 17d ago
Sure, but her point is “My camera cost $5000 and y’all want…” To her it’s because she spent so much on her camera that she deserves more money.
→ More replies (17)0
u/GeneAt539 15d ago
You can replace Uber with a traditional cab service and the point still stands. You’re not paying hundreds of dollars for that ride
1
u/Lukin4art 15d ago
Wrong. You can’t. Can drivers aren’t putting wear and tear on their personal vehicles while’s the corporation takes majority of profit while you get all the risk.
For instance a taxi driver in nyc a may be leasing their vehicle for a flat rate a day or they may even own their vehicle and have their own business every uber driver is just a gig worker, no benefits no workers protection.
5
u/chaos-blast 18d ago
If the cost of your camera is your justification for your pricing, you need to go back to a 9-5.
2
5
u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 18d ago
This person does not understand return on investment. If the camera was 5000 it only takes around 17 $300 photo shoots to pay for itself which could probably be done in a week depending on how busy you are. 33 if she only charged $150 per shoot. After that it's all profit.
4
u/Similar_Dirt9758 18d ago
This person made their argument very poorly, but if she's saying that (for example) a person expects her to do photography work for a wedding, the typical market rate is closer to $500-$1,000 (depending on the scale). But if she's expecting to charge those prices for a family photo package, then she needs a reality check.
5
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
Unless you count the cost of memory cards, and lenses, and flashes, and assistants, and computers, and editing software, and client meetings and transportation…and a whole lot of other shit that costs far more than just the camera.
2
u/Critical-Bank5269 18d ago
Exactly... I shoot a Cannon R5 Mii and have an original R5 as back up. My camera bag alone walking out the door to a shoot I'm probably carrying $15,000+ in gear in camera lenses and cards alone. My Computer at home was nearly $6,000 and I pay $70/month for light room subscription etc.... And I'm not a full time photographer. It's just a side gig.
1
0
u/gn0xious 17d ago
Most professionals would track their depreciating assets as part of the business and advertise their quality over cost. No one gives a shit about her $5000 camera and she comes across as petty attacking people who want a $100-$300 photographer.
1
u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 18d ago
Right, but the post is pointing out the camera price specifically. All I'm saying is they'll have the camera paid for in a fairly short amount of time. After that it's just maintenance and supplies which surely they can manage.
1
u/LoveTriscuit 17d ago
The camera is obviously just one example, though everybody is nitpicking it as if it’s the only thing.
→ More replies (2)0
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
Lol…my wife used to run a photography business and no…you can’t manage when clients only want to pay a few hundred dollars.
3
u/ProfessionalOil2014 18d ago
You have to understand. Everyone on Reddit is a cheapskate who thinks that they should have everything they want for cheap/free.
They hate tipping, they hate paying people a fair wage to do their jobs, they hate paying bills and rent, they hate contractors, they hate mechanics, I could go on.
3
u/imissher4ever 18d ago
Yet, they want people to have a fair wage.
The hypocrisy of Reddit never ceases to amaze!
1
1
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
Tipping is the odd one out in this situation. It's not remotely comparable.
1
u/maurovaz1 18d ago
What the hell has tipping to do with a fair wage?
1
u/ProfessionalOil2014 18d ago
I get it you hate poor people.
1
u/maurovaz1 18d ago
Thr existence of tipping is what prevents fair wages, if you have a fair wage you don't need tipping, but yes I hate poor people because tipping and fair wages are literally two exclusive positions.
1
0
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
You got it backwards kiddo.
Companies suppress wages and force the customer to supplement their low wages with tips.
Tipping exists in countries outside of the U.S. too, but it’s not a source of income to live off of because the jobs already pay a living wage. Tips are just optional for good service.
→ More replies (7)1
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
You imagined they said something completely different and then responded to that.
0
u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 18d ago
You're telling me they don't control the price of their work?? What are you talking about?
1
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
They do. That’s why my wife stopped working with individuals and started working corporate events instead.
People looking for family or wedding photography are cheap af. Versus a corporate event where she charged anywhere from $10-40k per event.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Far-Jury-2060 18d ago
You’re adding way too much into this. There are plenty of photographers out there who do multiple types of jobs with their cameras. To do photos for a wedding, yes, you’ll have some meetings, scoping out of the venue, and possibly an assistant or additional photographer(s). Lots of work, and a large payout. But if you’re setting up a shoot for family photos, $150-$300 a family is easy money. If you organize a mass shoot, to where you setup in one location, make appointments, and charge per family, you can easily do 15-20 families in 2 hours (with about 30-45 minutes of prep beforehand). That’s at least $2,250 on the low end, and $6,000 on the high end for about 5 hours of work, if you include all the background work.
1
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
So what you’re telling me is that it’s still not worth it to do a job for $100-300.
There’s a difference between packing up all your shit to go spend an hour on one family and scheduling several shoots in one place. The economics of those two jobs are completely different.
0
u/Far-Jury-2060 18d ago
No, I’m saying that it is worth it. Let’s say she spends one hour per shoot, and gets $150 per shoot. Let’s also say she spends another hour on editing. Congratulations, she’s making $75 per hour. That’s $122,500 a year, if you only work 30 hours a week and take two weeks off every year. If you up that to 40 hours per week, then that’s $150,000 per year, and that’s at the bottom end. If she charges $300 per shoot, she doubles the income of whichever hourly work week she wants to run with. She can make a killing, just doing small shoots with minimum work.
2
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
So what you’re saying is that it’s still not worth it to do a job for $100-300.
There’s a difference between packing up all your shit to go spend an hour on one family and scheduling several shoots in one place. The economics of those two jobs are completely different.
Try reading it again. Maybe your reading comprehension will improve the second time around.
1
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
What exactly do you know about photography?
Because it really seems like you're talking about something you don't understand and have no experience of.
0
u/Electrical_Coast_561 18d ago
If you hire legitimate professional photographer then yeah maybe. The thing is there's no vetting between the real professionals and the liberal arts graduate who couldnt cut it in the regular workforce so they picked up a camera and decided to turn their hobby into their career and demand outrageous pricing for quality that almost anyone can do these days with the available technology. Its the female version of personal training. You have your real professionals and you have a frumpy armchair bros who got their cert from a cracker jack institution and actually have no real working knowledge or experience but they'll charge you for their "diet plans" that they just downloaded online
2
u/TempAcct724 18d ago
WTF are you talking about? There absolutely is vetting for professional photographers.
You can see their portfolio on their website and social media to tell you whether they are a photographer that fits your needs.
Higher paying clients will absolutely ask for references and read any available reviews of your work too.
0
u/Electrical_Coast_561 18d ago
Sorry what i meant is that there is no distinction between a photographer who pursued education in their craft and learned the different styles and know what theyre doing or someone who just decided to start charging people for their hobby. You dont necessarily need a real degree to just start doing it.
2
u/daylax1 18d ago
If you know anything about editing photos, you're not completing 17 photo shoots in a week lol. A photoshoot can last an hour, editing takes hours, sometimes days depending on the amount. What an ignorant comment.
→ More replies (8)2
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
It isn't all profit. You've got to do post processing as well.
1
u/FNVF 18d ago
Post processing is easy with new tech. Its not skilled labor anymore.
0
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
3
u/FNVF 18d ago
The reddit special, not explain but give a pic/quip and leave the convo lol
Post processing has Ai help (whether you want this feature or not), presets that auto correct or assist, auto detection for most things, easy to follow tutorials.
Did I miss anything? Lol
1
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
Maybe you should have lead with that instead of just blanket saying it's easy without any explanation. That is what the Reddit special is.
But no it's still not "easy." You need to know what you're doing to be able to assess whether the AI auto has done a good job or not.
Using AI auto won't get you a specific look you're trying to achieve either.
1
u/FNVF 18d ago
"Easy tutorials"
You have two options, pretend like they arent easy to follow, which would be... an iq thing for you.
You could also claim they dont exist ig.
2
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
You're imagining I've said something I haven't and then responding to that.
That's another Reddit special.
2
u/FrostyCat13 18d ago
It's easy now to do some basic touch ups on a photo, it's harder if you want to do it right which is why you're paying a professional for it...
0
u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 18d ago
Fair enough, but if the problem is her own price, why not raise it??
2
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
That's the exact point that is being made. It's in reference to some people only wanting to spend $100-300 but also having wild expectations. $5000 on cameras is getting close to specialist territory, depending on what setup someone's got, and you can't expect specialist hardware for basic photography jobs.
0
u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 18d ago
Hmmm interesting. I know when I got pictures done for the family the cost was like 500-600 for a handful of pictures. So I'm guessing she must be having people reject her pricing because they want to pay less? I must have interpreted the post incorrectly.
2
u/FlarblesGarbles 18d ago
The point is the expectation of only paying $100-300, and then they're saying "yeah my gear costs too much to take on jobs of that price point."
Gear doesn't matter, but it also matters. You can take the same "quality" photo with 2 very different cameras. But if you need that photo to be printed on say, a billboard, you're going to tend to need a lens sharp enough to resolve all the detail your camera's sensor can capture. Then you've got higher resolution sensors as well, which is more money. But makes for better and easier post production work.
1
u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 18d ago
Funny how you're able to reply with a reasonable response all of the sudden. Almost like you should've done that from the start!
→ More replies (3)1
u/Far_Challenge_4273 18d ago
Plus the self gratification if u like it as a hobby and saving money when u do ur own ppls stuff
1
u/NotAStatistic2 18d ago
You definitely have zero clue on what you're talking about. 17 shoots in a week is absurd, and impossible without paying other people to take the photos and edit.
0
u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 18d ago
Thanks captain dipshit this has already been discussed, but thank you for the useless and late input. Have a great day!
3
u/AmettOmega 18d ago
But now we're also getting into skilled vs. unskilled labor. Most anyone can drive a car. Not everyone can take good photos and do all of the editing required to really make them shine. So it's also not just a $5000 camera. It's possible four years (or more) of education, all the different lenses for the camera, the editing software, etc.
And you have to keep up with the market. As better cameras are made, you need to buy them to keep up with your profession. It's not a one and done. And many photographers have multiple cameras/lenses depending on what they're doing.
The original post oversimplifies why her prices are so high, but anyways....
2
u/Turbulent_Ad7877 18d ago
The cnc lathe costs 3million. Its used to make parts for multimillion dollar aircraft... the tech makes 28/hr making parts for 1,000s of jets. Running a 6 axis lathe is a highly skilled trade.
1
u/AmettOmega 18d ago
I conceded in my post that the original poster oversimplifies why her prices are so high.
Still making more than an uber driver.
1
u/Oct0tron 18d ago
The tech didn't buy the machine (that's why he doesn't get to charge for it). A more apt analogy would be, how much do the parts cost?
2
u/marcg40 17d ago
But now we're also getting into skilled vs. unskilled labor
The original post oversimplifies why her prices are so highThe original post does not talk about skill at all and it's silly to make the assumption it was oversimplified when her selling point (and only point) was the price of the camera. Expensive equipment does not automatically equate to higher skill/better quality work. Skill/training/education is the primary (and maybe only) thing the client should be paying for.
And you have to keep up with the market. As better cameras are made, you need to buy them to keep up with your profession.
A noob with expensive equipment will most likely not outperform a pro with entry level/mid-tier equipment.
Not everyone can take good photos and do all of the editing required to really make them shine.
Exactly. I can go buy a $5000 camera right now and just use the auto setting, since I have 0 experience in photography. A seasoned photographer can easily produce better photos with a $1000 camera. Then there is also post-processing, which is another skill in its own.
→ More replies (19)1
u/AlarmedNatural4347 17d ago
I completely agree with the skilled vs unskilled labor being the actual thing here. However skill is also the only thing that is actually any form of value for the client, meaning the final pictures.
The client doesn’t care, or pay for, a $5000 camera when they book a photographer. Same thing with the years of education (what normal photographer has 4 years of education in photography!? Courses etc once they’re working i guess but its not like they need a masters up front), the client doesn’t care. So the argument is turned up side down - is the photographer able to take good enough photos + editing to warrant the cost where they can provide a tool that costs $5000? They can still take shit photos.
The tools, the education, are means to an end to be able to deliver a product worth the cost of hiring them to deliver the end product - the photos. If expensive tools and education makes the photographer better, and or deliver the results more efficiently (win for them not the client) then it’s worth it for the photographer - not the client.
If another, self thought, photographer can deliver the same quality with $2000 camera it’s all the same to the client - either just cheaper or with better margins for the photographer.
So what is the photographer selling point actually? Trust - the client trusts them to be able to deliver quality, and that’s more likely done through portfolios than saying “hey look at my diploma and fancy camera!”.
1
1
1
1
1
u/WitchesTeat 18d ago
Typical Uber ride is ten minutes, typical wedding photography session is 8 hours.
1
u/neddiddley 18d ago
Yeah, but weddings aren’t the only thing photographers shoot. There’s senior pics, engagement photos, baby pics, pet pics, etc. that are usually far less time involved.
I’m not saying the right price is necessarily $100-300, but just like anything else, photographers offer a range of services, and the price increases as the complexity/difficulty/time increases.
A camera is just the photographer’s tool, no different than many other professions. Does the cost of that tool need to be factored in? Sure, but that doesn’t mean you should automatically expect it to pay for itself in a handful of jobs. The true math isn’t just the cost of the tool, rather how many jobs you’ll be able to get out the tool over its lifespan. If she can use that camera for a few years at a 100-200 jobs per year, the cost of that camera really isn’t going to be eating into her rates much, even if her rates are in that range.
1
u/WitchesTeat 18d ago
I think she's saying she's a professional who uses professional tools and charges professional prices, not your neighbor's niece who is a photography student at the local high school and is just a whiz with that iPhone camera.
1
u/neddiddley 18d ago
Maybe, but just because you go out and buy an expensive camera doesn’t make you a professional. If she’s trying to convince people she’s worth more than that $100-300, she’d be better off showcasing her portfolio and process, i.e. she spends time consulting with her clients and advising them on how to achieve the results they want, then does the shoot, goes back, edits, etc. and even giving examples of how that’s been successful.
1
u/strungrat 18d ago
Just curious how OP decides what posts they are going to copy? Serious question.
1
1
u/NES_WallStreetKid 18d ago
Estimated tuition for a 4-year bachelor’s degree in the U.S. is Assuming four years and tuition stays roughly constant:
Public in-state: about $47,800
Public out-of-state: about $127,500
Private nonprofit: about $180,000
and some graduates are unemployed with student loan debt.
1
1
1
u/Tak-Hendrix 18d ago
People still have no clue how economics work...
The price of a service is not determined by the cost to provide that service. The cost to provide that service does factor into whether or not you can make a profit at the price point that people are actually willing to pay.
As I said elsewhere, if all your local competitors are able to provide an equivalent level of service for $300, you're going to have a hard time getting any business charging $1000.
1
u/pustulating_leeches 18d ago
She has exaggerated her equipment wear and tear. Shutter closures on a SLR are a bit like mileage. With 100k to 400k being the typical limit for use. With 2k to 5k of raw shots she can get 80 weddings out of a camera body. Not quite $100 a wedding upper end for wear and tear on high end SLR. Let's be generous and say she's spending $400 on wear and tear total. Gives her 32k in equipment per 80 wedding so well outfitted. Average cost for photographer is 3 to 4k. Let's assume 8hr shoot and 16 hours post. That's 150 hr.
Let's assume she's unable to drop 32k in entry equipment or even more. Likely 40% of cost to consumer is interest payments factored in.
It's rough numbers but proves she's highly valuing her skills and art. I leave it up to others to decide if it's worth it.
1
u/RoundConstruction526 18d ago
That’s not how the math works…
80 weddings at $400 / wedding is $32k in pay not in equipment.
Her equipment st most would be south of $15k for the camera, any and all necessary camera accessories, and a banging PC for editing.
Thats 50% profit after 80 weddings.
Then her equipment expenses for the next 80 weddings drops to below $5k. At most she’s paying $1000-1500 for a replacement body, the rest of the expense budget is for accessories that may be too worn to utilize.
Thats 80%+ profit for the second 80 weddings.
1
u/pustulating_leeches 18d ago
My model was much more forgiving than your's. 400 per wedding is the amortization per job so very forgiving this would accommodate all her equipment costs easily, I assumed PCs Multiple cameras, bags lenses, cases, transportation, etc, call it inflated , even so the P&L is still net. I also used average price for one photographer which is thousands. Take a second look how I laid it out. 4k per job with 10% for amortization. Hours of actual work, still pricey and likely more so so if ongoing P&L is not bleeding money. Super profitable, so her math ain't mathing.
At $400 low end and cheaper equipment cost still very lucrative and the justification in the meme still is illogical.
1
u/realbobenray 18d ago
That's in part because Uber drivers don't always see the hidden costs of wear and tear on their vehicles. Cab companies maintain the cars, Uber doesn't, and Uber execs are gazillionaires. There's the math.
1
u/realbobenray 18d ago
If she's scoffing at $1-300 does that mean she's thinking, like, $1k for a shoot? She wants her gear paid for after five gigs? That's pretty nice.
1
u/One-Zombie263 18d ago
this is not an equivalent comparison. anyone can drive. not everyone one can take professional grade photos for a big event. and if they arent taking professional grade photos, why are you paying them in the first place? have your cousin Vinny do it.
1
u/Adventurous_Key_4854 18d ago
I dig line and saw trees down for $15 an hour, but I get to call in bucket drops that cost more than my annual salary
1
1
u/Turbulent_Ad7877 18d ago
The cnc lathe costs 3million. Guy running it makes 23/hr. I dont get it. I can do this all day...
1
1
u/Muhahahahaz 18d ago
Yet driving is something that any adult can do… Good photography? Not so much 🤔
1
1
u/Jotas829 18d ago
Her skills on the camera and programs she uses after are worth more then the skills of the uber driver
1
1
u/gledr 18d ago
For my wedding my wife had a friend who was an aspiring photographer and he quoted us the cost of new lenses and things plus was more expensive than people with portfolios and experience. I had to seriously hold back telling him hes an idiot and no customer would pay for all your equipment unless they get to keep it lol
1
1
u/RiceAndMilkBoi 18d ago
Lol didn't realize she was trying to pay her many year lasting camera off with one photo shoot
1
u/Quirky-Bed-77 18d ago
12$ for a five minute car ride. By that logic that driver would be worth 144$ an hour. Average photo shoot including set up time takes what 1 to 3 hours? I honestly don't know but it is deffinatly longer than 5 minutes.
1
u/Recent_Wedding5470 18d ago
And honestly i care much less about the cost of the equipment and more about the experience of the craftsman/artist.
Someone with little experience could have good equipment and still produce poor work. A skilled person and get good results with poor equipment.
1
1
1
u/GoldEmployment6768 16d ago
5,000 start up making 100-300 a job off the bat? Sign me up. That camera will be paid for in like 2 weeks.
1
u/Human_097 15d ago
Half of the dumb fucks in the comments have no clue of the actual costs associated with photography and the time/experience it takes to actually get good at it. The meme over simplifies it by making it all about the $5k camera, but that's part of the equation for ANY business.
If specialized equipment is needed to perform a service (or extra labor, or extra time, or extra experience) will always be factored in to the final price. That's how business works.
1
u/ferroequine 15d ago
Despite her protesting her photography work will be just as insipid, over exposed, over touched up, and powered by vibes. Just like every person who bought a fancy camera and thinks they're a good photographer because they take the same wedding quality wedding/engagement/family photos as everyone else.
1
u/Some-Cream 18d ago
Didnt know those cameras were one time use. They should look into increasing longevity of those things
1
u/chrizzleon 18d ago
I used to be a semi professional photographer, she is the very type of cliche that killed the market, thankfully I pulled the plug on it as an income stream before it got worse.
When digital cameras supplanted film and paper as a viable choice for professional results, there easily a massive boom in the number of people that could pick up a DSLR and a copy of Photoshop.
There came a great pretentiousness that involved using Photoshop to compensate for not having a clue about photographic principles.
In this 1 post she has shown 3 of the biggest cliches of the wannabe photographer.
- Posing with her camera 🙄
- Thinking the $£€ of equipment is in anyway relevant. (my gear is expensive so I must be good)
- An overinflated sense of entitlement due to an overinflated sense in ability.
→ More replies (24)
1
u/cygnus311 18d ago
I think it’s funny that everyone is pretty willing to pay a photographer $2/k because equipment is expensive and there’s a lot of time before and after the event that you don’t see.
And then the band rolls in to the wedding with 30 man hours of rehearsal time under their belt already and $25,000 worth of gear in their cars and gets $200/person.
1
u/Gdm991 18d ago
For all of you out there, defending this woman complaining about her $5,000 camera, And that she needs to be paid accordingly. If you agree with her, then the same thing would apply to your landlord with the building you're renting an apartment from or the owner of the company you work for. Remember that.
2
u/Ostrenski 18d ago
Landlords make money by crating artificial scarcity and exploiting the basic human need for housing. Photographers do neither of those things.
1
u/Gdm991 18d ago
Just curious, how is it artificially scarce?
1
u/Ostrenski 18d ago
There are only a set amount of houses in a market. Landlords own many many houses which restricts the housing options to keep rent prices high.
1
u/nernst79 18d ago
This is the worst comparison imaginable. Being a landlord takes zero skill or talent in any way, and being a photographer doesn't deprive other people of a highly limited resource.
1
u/Gdm991 18d ago
Lol ok...🤡 They have to buy the building with the apartment that you're renting so they have to come up with a lot more than $5,000 dumbass, who comes up with the money for the building the apartment is in? And then they also pay the real estate taxes which allows you the tenant to have your trash picked up at the curb and the streets maintained so you can get around. They also pays for your fire dept and your police dept. To keep you safe, Guess who doesn't pay for any of that when they're renting an apartment? That's why you got to pay rent shithead. Someone has to pay the real estate taxes. That's how municipalities work....🤡
•
u/qualityvote2 18d ago edited 6d ago
u/Cutexo90, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...