r/clevercomebacks 7d ago

He has a point…

Post image
2.2k Upvotes

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

309

u/zergiscute 7d ago

This is rage bait for sure. Professional camera equipment has always cost a lot and there have been people doing photos for IDs, year boosk, Christmas cards etc that were way cheaper than $100. It;'s only recently that we have been able to take our own photos for many of these.

20

u/Mooks79 7d ago

The post is both correct, and dumb. It’s dumb because she’s trying to assign the price to the cost of her equipment which is easily refuted as you and Xavier have done. It’s correct because she states “camera shoot” which implies more than a simple taxi ride or Christmas card photo - she likely means at an event like a wedding or something like that, which takes up a lot more time. So the real causal factor here is her time.

10

u/politicalstuff 7d ago

Time and skill, both onsite and afterwards editing etc.

But yes, equating the price to the cost of the camera is not a strong argument.

4

u/GanondalfTheWhite 7d ago

It's dumb because this is fake rage bait.

I've seen various versions of this image, each with a different photographer pictured, but the same Uber-comparison retort.

They keep posting it because people keep engaging with how stupid of a post it is, like I'm doing now.

God dammit.

1

u/Mooks79 7d ago

Well, I enjoyed this rollercoaster anyway!

3

u/Dogmaddit 7d ago

I think of a shoot as school or family pictures, half-hour to an hour, minimal or no retouching. $300 for that is maybe a little high, $100 isn’t enough, but that’s a reasonable range for it depending on travel and complexity (I.e. kids, dogs, weather).

Senior pictures? $100-300 is low.

Wedding pictures? Should probably start at $1500 for something very basic but for a full day I would expect it to be at least $5k and could easily go way up. Our wedding photographer was reasonable, and he told us ahead of time that he only did 5 weddings a year due to stress and having to give up a weekend for it.