 William |
How Do You Charge a Client for Photos? How do I charge the client, when they are requesting images on a CD?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Janessa L. Taber-Webb |
You can do it two ways. Charge them a price for the entire CD, or charge them per slide. Then give them a copyright permission letter. Or... you could just not offer them. It's your work so it's your decision. Like for me, I don't offer CDs for studio work, but I offer them to my wedding clients. I offer all of the pictures in my most expensive package, and don't offer them in the cheaper ones. But if they want them, I charge $5 a slide. Some photographers charge $200 and up for CDs. It just depends on you and how much money you want to make off it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Who and what is your client? IBM? Charge them a ton! Your relatives? Ease off a little. Friends? Somewhere in between. Shooting one portrait? Shooting a 747 aircraft? Travel costs? Are you doing a lot of post-processing? Are you an experienced photographer? What are you worth per hour? All of these things must be taken into account to answer your question.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Leighty |
It never ceases to amaze us how little value we place on our talents! Why are we selling CD's? Are we afraid we will lose the sale? A decent artist never sells his original unless it brings in plenty. We are not getting paid for the photograph, we are getting paid for our time, our equipment and the years it took us to learn the art. Perhaps we should re-think our career if it has no real value!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Forget what everybody else charges. Assess it yourself. What is your time and effort worth to you????
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
I completely agree with Pete, Tom and Roy. There's even more, however. You need to consider the loss of future print sales (at least with this client). Rights of usage, selling unlimited use of your copyrighted material versus limited use, say one-time for a single advertisement. Also, add in your costs of doing business which includes not only your time on an hourly basis, but cost of your equipment and depreciation, taxes, overhead like rent, materials, pixels (what ARE pixels going for these days at B&H?); liability and property insurance, association membership fees, continuing education, mileage, attorney and accountant fees if any, subscriptions to publications, software costs, rental fees for lighting, camera lenses, etc., AND, AND last but not least what's the value of the work to the client...ANY client, whether it's IBM or your aunt's sister. Once you've calculated all these costs then you're ready to start calculating a price for these images.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
William; You may not like what you are reading in the above posts, including mine; but there is no way to sugar coat the answer to your question. There are many people on this forum, quite a few are professional, sucessful and their time is valuable..MY time is valuable. The advice you received is sound and based on experience from others who have been there and done it. Do not take it as a personal attack..it is not. Many are here to help, we volunteer our time. No; we don't ask for accolades, but at least an aknowledgement that you received the info would be polite. When I see posts like this, I wonder if someone is simply trolling for attention or really seeking advice and guidance. Janessa, Tom, Roy, Mark..I'll thankyou for your time you spend on this board.
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
William |
To everyone that has responded to my question. I apologize for not responding in a timely fashion. I really do appreciate your feedback and I'm very new to the business side of photography. I've taken all the information and I will charge the client to my by best ability. This client is a new charter school and the budget isn't that great. I'm also hoping to negotiate a larger contract with this client in the near future. To be honest I accepted the project from the contruction company and I feel I did very well with there requests(prints). So again thanks to everyone and I hope I didn't hurt anyones feeling. I look forward to asking more questions in the near future.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christine Hunt |
William, I am new in the photography business within the last year. I am also a member of ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers www.asmp.org)They have an online forum, such as this, where photographers post questions and more experienced photographers give valuable answers. The one thing that is emphasized is copyright and licensing. So many clients do not understand the value of the service we provide. In a wedding situation you make your money on prints of the pictures a client selects. Just because your picture is in a digital file doesn't mean it can be used by anyone to make as many prints as they want. The file is your negative. In an advertising capacity the client's product or service is connected to a photograph used in their ad. What would the ad be without the picture? Text, boring, uninteresting, and not captivating. Recently I have found that most small business clients, even marketing agencies do not value our pictures. I have turned down work because they would not agree to licensing fees. I figure I don't want to set a precedent of not charging or licensing since it will be harder to charge for it in the future. I feel it is best to find the clients I really want to work with and who appreciate my work than slum around with those who don't. Just because you want to make money at photography, don't sell the entire industry short. People who don't charge for licensing or hand over the copyright to anyone who asks hurts all the professional photographers in their ability to make a living at it. Unless we stand together on these issues we will not have profitable businesses. If you want to be in the photograhy business then join some professional organizations and learn everything you can about the business, licensing and copyrights. And, stand your ground. Christine
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Howdy Pete: Thanks !! I appreciate your appreciations !! You'll notice the date William signed up for the forum. Probably can't find his way back and may get a lot of credit cards in the mail he can't remember signing up for. Christine, you're right of course. And these things have been major issues not only at ASMP, but Advertising Photogs of America. While the pros around here echo your thoughts and sentiments, we're seeing these kinds of questions in increasing numbers posed by what I call "wannabe's. Most of them would do nearly anything or give away anything, to see their photos published with or without a byline. Unfortunately, a larger percentage of them are amateurs looking to "dabble" in a profession and without learning any of the fundamental business practices, including pricing, licensing agreements, stock delivery memos, etc. And, what's really disappointing to me is how many of them are looking for short cuts into areas that people like you, Pete, Kerry, me, Tom and Roy too I suspect, have paid so much in dues to get to. Most of these "I'm starting my photo biz" don't have the slightest clue on what to charge let alone an inkling on what's involved in running a real business enterprise. They have no business plan, no start-up capital, they're just hanging out a shingle basically and going on word of mouth because it seems fun to them. Out of all the people I've run across here, only one, ONE was interested in joining a local chapter of a professional association. When someone else said they couldn't afford it (the dues) before knowing what they even were, I told them they couldn't afford not to. So, as one pro to another, while I'm in complete agreement with your sage words of wisdom here, I'm just afraid they're falling on deaf ears. I think most of them have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with the facts. lol !! Take care folks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Mark; You sir are right on the money in your statements. I have never been a believer in being politically correct, expecially when it comes to advice concerning a business..any business! So as not to slam anyone in particular, these people do not need photography courses, they need business courses! I have preached time and again on these forums, that their photos, the quality, the niche' they think they've found, how many MP's their cam is, be it med format, 35mm, film or digital..etc..etc..mean nothing without sound business practices and marketing! Nothing sells itself, we sell ourselves. We show value in our work. Mark; I'm in complete agreement when you say most of this falls on deaf ears. What has taken you, myself and many others years of hard work, anguish, heartache, ups and downs; this new breed of shooters feel we have a magic potion to prescribe so they can avoid all our mistakes and enjoy instant success. NOT! To others reading these posts, take heed from people who have been there and do make a living at it, understand; it is not how great your work is, it is not how many MP's your camera is, it is not film nor is it digital that makes you successful in this field, it is not how often you are a finalist or received POD award, it is not your umbrellas, softbox, backgrounds. What will make you successful in photography is as all things in life are..Hard work,sound and moral business practices, taking advice from those who have been there and done that.and NOT trying to cut corners for a quick buck. As I said earlier, I am NOT a believer in being politically correct, for in that, and in my opinion only, the PC words are a path to avoiding what needs to be said and generally skirts the real issues..and THAT, is a disservice to anyone wanting real answers.
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christine Hunt |
Go Pete and Mark!!! I reiterate your knowledge of it being a tough business and the reason, I believe, is due to the "wannabees" not understanding licensing and usage fees. There are a lot of publications/agencies/businesses out there who either understand it and try to wiggle the cheapest price out of the photographer or they don't have a clue about licensing and neither do the photographers that do work for them. Unfortunately it lies in the lap of the photographer to stand firm and refuse work when the client isn't willing to pay for licensing. Otherwise, before we know it only "work for hire" positions will be available for all photographers. When that happens the industry will collapse because competition for good images will decrease. There will be no incentive for an exceptional photographer to work for the low wages offered. I've noticed that Better Photo does have a business course but I did not see anything in the course profile that mentioned copyright and licensing. If a photographer is planning on selling his/her work this is the most essential part of the business. I'd also like to see local camera clubs have informational meetings on these topics. Like me, it is usually people active in clubs that move into the profession of photography. I didn't have a clue when I started but learned all I know through reading information supplied by ASMP and reading the postings on their online forum. They have a "starter" rate for new members/students for those who don't feel they can afford it. Anyway, my two cents. Christine
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
I think we should start our own web site: REALITIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC BUSINESS...IT AIN'T JUST A PRETTY PICTURE. Well Pete, I don't tend to pull punches either and I don't see anything wrong with that in your case or mine. I'm well aware that Christine didn't just stroll into an ASMP meeting and say I'm here, sign me up. I had to do a multiple portfolio review and show recent tear sheets with bylines before they accepted me...back when Moses was in short pants. Same with NPPA (Nat'l Press Photographers). But that's all with good reason. You know guys (Pete and Christine, Tom, Roy, et al), digital cameras and all their accessories are just tools. Not a means to an end. Just like our film cameras are merely tools. And when you think about it, business courses are all just tools that we can use to get our jobs done more successfully. But sadly, I note that when you start telling people with digital camera photo businesses just starting out that that ought to have a solid, flexible business plan, a budget for things like marketing AND insurance, and equipment is at the bottom of the list, they don't get it. I went through this whole thing a number of times here in the past few weeks. I often suggest to people that they should take courses in darkroom work to understand the process even though they're working digitally. They don't get it. So, when someone tells me that they're photographers and shoot a digital hoo-ha camera, fixing everything in photoshop, I gently remind them that they're not photographers writing with light. Rather I perceive them as essentially like graphic designer using a computer to create images. Not so much a camera. Then they get insulted. They don't understand the business or the ethics, they don't understand the technique, they don't understand the technology but they want, they want, they want, and they want it the easy way and fast. That's all digital means to me. Ok, stepping (or falling) down off my soapbox. Hey, have you guys been over to APUG.org? Analog Photographers Users Group. It's truly a wonderful place for real photographers. Take a look and if you like it, join and support it. REALLY COOL !!! Live discussion groups too. Nice touch. We'll keep chipping away here and see if it really makes an impression. Meanwhile, I gotta go wash my old socks. LOL !! Be well.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Ditto Mark! I find nothing wrong in anything you just wrote..a first for me! LOL As far as your soapbox?..I often get nose bleeds when on mine.
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
William |
I want to thank everyone again for your feedback. I will take this feedback and move forward. I plan to enroll in some additional classes, I'm working on a business plan, and I plan to use ASMP in the near future. I really understand all the comments/feedback and they're not falling on deaf ears. I'm working with two professional photographers that are mentoring me in may areas of photography and how make decisions. I just wanted to get some advise from this forum. All the comments/feedback that you have given, my fellow photographers have stated the same. Thanks again, and I will be asking more questions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
William, All the best to you and nothing but success I wish for you. Sounds like ou are on the right track. Rock on my friend.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Hi everyone.... don't know where to start. Some interesting comments above, though I do not agree with many of them. Think about the days before "photography" existed... the oohaa from the true "artists of the day". Photography was a cheap "quick way" to get image onto paper/canvas. Photographers were considered the plague of the art world. All the "purist" comments abounded from artists. The scum of the earth. Now re-read many of the above Responses and see the similarity.... Digital photography is BS and the purveyors of this are quick buck merchants. Sounds familiar doesn't it????? We live in a changing world... though many do not wish to go there... unfortunately. Being a member (or not) of this or that association means nothing... or do you feel there is safety in numbers? Surround yourself with like-minded people and try your darndest to influence the whole industry to your way of thinking (protectionism). A true artist works alone (no associations necessary)! But are photographers artists? Some of the purists above seem to think they are bestowed with this heavenly quality. One may say they are mechanical technical button pressers (compared to real art and paint etc). In the graphic art world they are paid for hire. This is not a dirty word by any means (though you imply this). Why do photographers think they have a God-given right to charge multiple times for the same job. No other profession can do this. Many ordinary folk believe that if someone hires you to take photos, they pay you, you give them the pics and that should be that. Why do you want useage rights, re-print rights, etc etc etc. If you were to design and construct a coffee table for a client and agree on say $600 for the job.... why do Photographers want an extra "cut" if the client re-sells that designer coffee table for $60,000. Is it not the good fortune of the seller? There are many more examples I could express but I feel have I made my point. I expect my comments will arouse much wrath from previous respondents.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bret Tate |
Roy: You make some interesting points, however the logic is flawed. You state that only photographers charge multiple times for the "same job". I believe that Bill Gates has charged thousands of times for the single job of creating Windows. You also state that "in the graphic art world they are paid for hire". I too have been paid for hire as a photographer. To be accurate, the coffee table story should have been told like this: "If you were to design and construct a coffee table for a client and agree on say $600 for the job.... why do Photographers want an extra "cut" if the client re-sells many copies of that designer coffee table that you created for $60,000. Is it not the good fortune of the seller?" I have no problem with someone purchasing a fine art piece from me and re-selling that single item. I do have a problem when someone purchases a single item then makes copies of that item and sells them. In your world there is no need for patents or copyrights. I can go to someone in the graphic art world and pay for a job and then re-sell the concept from my own graphic art studio to clients, right?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Bill Gates is not a good example. Basically he is selling a "tool" to create other things. He is not selling a work of art. And besides, nobody else has commissioned him to do it. He is a free trader operating off his own back. He has created something, and now wants to sell it. I agree with him. In a photographic sense.... if you were to create or take the best photo ever, in your own time, with no outside influence or payment, then of course you retain full rights with everything, across the board. You should milk it for all it's worth. My point is when a client (like a couple getting married) asks you for a "quote" to "take" or "create" some beautiful pictures of their wedding day.... but then the Photographer wants to retain full copyright, re-sale useage etc etc etc. In other words he wants his cake and to eat it too. Surely this is pushing it too far and in a real sense is unethical? If I hire and commission a Photographer (or any creative person), tell them what I want (in a general sense), pay for their time, pay for their creativity, pay for their travelling expenses... then the end product belongs to me (lock stock and barrel), because I have paid for it in every sense of the word. On the other hand, if a Photographer only charged me for the "basics" (ie: time snapping, basic proofs, etc) and there was no component in his Invoice for "creativity"... which overall would be cheaper (I assume)... then I agree that he retains copyright etc. You can't charge somebody top dollar then want to be paid every time it's used. I have been in business for over 25 years. In the past I have commissioned many photographers (of varied capabilities) and they have "all" tried to hit me for the "extras". I have always won. This is not new to present day procedures (Digital or otherwise). Your comment about going to someone in the graphic art field (ie: which I am heavily involved in), paying for a concept and then re-selling it happens all the time. Graphic arts is very very difficult to copyright (concept or otherwise). Believe it or not it is very common business practice. You could be an agent, ask me to design a Logo for a particular industry, pay me, then re-sell it to the real client. This happens with PR companies all the time (middle men). I would be laughed out of court if I tried to get "payment" every time they used or printed my Logo (even though this is real "art" not just photography).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Maybe I was not spot on with my "coffee table" example.... but you get my drift. If we both sat down and discussed you designing and creating the best coffee table that has ever been built there would be much interaction between us (to and fro)... various design proofs, discussions, etc etc etc, design tweaks here and there. The bottom line is you are working "for me". I am paying you for all your time and effort (both creative and mechanical).... therefore if anybody has the right to eventually mass produce the coffee table it is me (not you). Or, would you prefer to be able to mass produce the coffee table yourself (even though the original client has paid you for all your time in creating the prototype)???? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Leighty |
Mr. Blinston, We are not speaking to the single sale of a product and the subsequent re-sale. Your example of a coffee table is correct in that if you sell the coffee table and it is subsequently sold, there should not be any subsequent payment. But...let us make a more appropriate example. What if you wrote a book. Should you get paid for all of the copies printed? What if you wrote a movie? Should you get paid for the viewings? What if you invented the bobby pin? Should you get paid for all the booby pins sold? This is a basic philosophy of a freemarket society.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
"In other words he wants his cake and to eat it too." Never could understand that old adage. What use is there in having a cake if you can't eat it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christine Hunt |
Just a little note to support that fact that the photographer owns the image and that photographers and clients enter into agreements for creating and licensing of images. According to the 1976 Federal Copyright Act, in the absence of a written transfer of copyright, ownership of an image rests with the creator. That is why we belong to organizations like ASMP and APA etc. They are out there protecting our rights. Recently an image copyright pre-registration law has been passed. For more information on it check out the site at www.copyright.gov. Also, go to the ASMP copyright tutorial at www.asmp.org/copyright. If we don't value what we create, noone else will. Christine
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Per Kerry.... the cake and eat it too does sound somewhat confusing at first, but we all know what it means. Per Tom... the difference here with the book rights is that it's OK if you wrote the book in your own time from your own expenses... and you did a deal with the publisher. However, if a client commissioned you to write it, told you what the subject was, gave you some basic instruction on what they wanted regarding style/content etc... and then paid you for all your "time" for the creation of it.... then surely the client should have the rights of copyright. Per Christine... I agree completely providing there is, as you say, an absence of a written transfer. From a purely moral perspective surely you would think the person paying all the bills for the creation of anything would naturally own the copyright (not the person who created it). In conclusion.... if you create something off your own bat, then it's yours, and you are entitled to all rights. However, if someone commissions you and pays you for this creation, for all your time, expenses, travelling, etc etc... and may even have a hand in some of the direction.... then surely they own everything (after paying you that is)... which brings me back to wanting the cake and to eat it too! One doesn't have to belong to any association to be protected by copyright laws, providing of course you can prove you are the creator.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Greetings Roy: I wouldn't say "wrath" as you put it, but rather I think most of what you said is simply insulting to every professional who reads it, whether a photographer, illustrator, graphic artist, dentist or lawyer, any professional. It's also highly misleading to amateurs who look to us for advice. I'm going to address my comments to commercial photography primarily for advertising. Your coffee table analogy doesn't hold water. If the table was patented or design copyrighted and you bought one, the mere sale doesn't grant you the license to reverse engineer it and start selling it in mass. That infringes on the property rights of the original creator. Those property rights are not new. Unlike your comments about things changing, these rights haven't changed much. They were covered by the drafters of the U. S. Constitution in 1776. The copyright act has been amended on numerous occasions to strengthen, not undermine the rights of creative individuals seeking to protect their work from thieves. And, I don't get paid to push buttons or fix my work. I get paid to shoot it right in the viewfinder and make creative decisions while producing original works that portrays my clients in the best light. Apparently what you're missing, among other things, is what the value of the work is to the client initially and subsequently. Your broad based assertion that you hire them, pay them and their expenses and you own it, smacks of involuntary servitude, more recently some would refer to as work for hire. While yes, many designers or graphic artists work on a single project as a work for hire, IF they're called upon to subsequently modify it or recreate it using the same photographs in a different format, etc., THEY CHARGE SEPARATELY FOR THAT, as we charge for different usage. One value you get when you retain the services of a photographer is pricing value. You don't pay any more than for what you need or use. If a later time, you need to use it more in a different format, layout, set-up or for a different purpose, yes, you pay more for that usage becasue it has a value to you that was not communicated to the photographer in the first place and that [s]he didn't have an opportunity to properly quite a reasonable fee for the usage and the VALUE OF THE USAGE TO YOU. So, we charge a usage fee, just the same as the printer charges new setup fees and labor associated with that, the magazines charge additional insertion fees for advertising, etc. Everyone gets paid. Not just you. Get it? If you came to me for an assignment and tried to hammer me on the price after explaining to you why the price is what it is, I'd tell you to take a hike. I'm having a little trouble believing that you've proudly been doing that to photographers for 25 years. Frankly, I can't see how anyone would want to work with you at all. You also don't seem to understand the phrase you used "top dollar". Shoot fees just cover a basic hourly rate, equipment usage, our overhead, travel, assistant fees, insurance, ad infinitim, and then with that initial fee, we build in the cost of the proposed usage. The work of graphic artists is protected all the time either through trademarks or copyrights. Apparently you don't even understand your own business. As to your comments re. Associations, safety in numbers, etc., that sounds like mob mentality to me or a crack made by some lower echelon corporate manager. My analogy is that united we stand, divided we fall. Assoc. provide members as a group with knowledge and insight shared among others and that makes us stronger individuals. We often take that knowledge and educate our clients or the general public. Everyone, from designers to dentists has an association they can belong to. Our associations aren't unions, per se. We don't price fix. We survey among ourselves and find out what the market will bear. I have no doubt that you too try to maximize your own profits. You've as much admitted to that, and you seem to do it on the backs of those you would be hard-pressed to do without. If that wasn't so, than why have you hired so many of us over 25 years, huh? Take it light gang.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I agree with Mark but from a different perspective. I don't do the same type of work as Mark; I shoot weddings. My method of opperation is a little different from what most people do now. I don't work by the hour. By that, I mean I don't provide coverage of a certain number of hours for a certain fee. When someone hires me to shoot a wedding they sign a contract for a package containing a certain amount of pictures - the higher the price of the package, the more pictures they get. They aren't paying for my time or my negatives. They are paying for what they get - the pictures. If they want to order more pictures, they pay more money. It's a simple as that. They didn't buy me and my equipment or rent me and my equipment. They hired me because they like the product I deliver and they get what they pay for, nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
I'm with Kerry 100%. I think that manner of pricing is exceedingly fair for himself and his clients. I'm sure when someone orders more prints after the initial order, you build in some additional cost for your time, plus the materials or charges for prints, etc. Of course you should. We ALL should, which is why I just don't understand why people continue to give their work away first time around. Are they that desparate to get an assignment? Or are they that interested in low balling the neighborhood guy who makes his living as a phototographer rather than just dabbling in it. :<( Another one of life's unanswered questions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Per Mark's comments.... You have moved the goalposts in your favour to create your argument. Of course if the coffee table was patented then you have full rights and nobody can copy it. Did I say otherwise? No I didn't. All your oohah about the constitution is irrelevant in this case (as you undoubtedly know but you are using it to cloud the issue). Of course graphics people charge for modifications... this is often a money maker exceeding the initial fee (and rightly so) because of the extra time and effort involved. Photographers do not modify a picture to suit a new format (as in graphics). The printer or designer would do that (not you). If you were commissioned to take photos of a family, but then the client, after seeing the pics, wanted different formats, or a new shoot, then you would charge them extra, and so you should. And, by the way, I do know my business.... 100%.... but I am also fair minded. I cannot charge every time an advertisement is placed in a magazine.... and to expect so is unfair. If they place 100 adverts I should not expect to get paid 100 times over. Your next example is totally stupid... being for use in the first instance. If I bought a chair to sit on, would I have to pay extra to the designer if I used it to "stand on" or sleep on, etc etc (ie: different useage)??? In the "acting" world many actors are paid for their services.... but don't get a percentage of box office receipts. However, on some occasions, actors will forego their higher fee (or any fee at all) and gamble on a percentage of takings. They may win, or they may lose.... take your pick. However, many photographers want it both ways! I am not trying to be dorogatory to any profession, but this is the real world. Your paragraph starting with "getting a pricing value" and for certain useage is a load of hogwash. I bought a screwdriver to tighten screws, but I also use it open paint cans! Ahah! different useage.... where's my extra fee. BS. What is useage anyway? If I hire you to take some photos ... what I do with them is up to me (providing I pay your quoted price for the job and we agree on that). If there is no agreement in place beforehand, then you retain copyright. Nobody is being sold short here.... if you think so you are being greedy. A Printer will charge new set-up fees on a re-print.... but he is actually doing something physically which takes time and effort. (cost)... not just giving permission to use it and expecting another fee. Greed. How can you say I don't understand my own business. This is a cheap low shot with no foundation. I have been in business for over 25 years. All graphics are protected even without registration of trademarks or copyright providing you can prove you created it on a certain date. Not everyone needs to belong to an association. In your case best you stay with them. I for one would never hire you with your attitude. Your reference to the pig is retrospective and is certainly bordering on "personal". This happens when people cannot argue a point in a factual or moral way. I pity your mentality and scoff at your arrogance. Try and think like a fair minded person.... just try it... eventually you will get there.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael F |
Wow, after reading through this email stream, I forgot what the questions was. Oh yes pricing. Please allow a new member and yes new to the business. Christine, Pete, Mark you guys sound so angry at any new photographer who dreams of doing tghe business. Can you remember back to when you first took the lens cap off professionally, were you not excited, quick on the draw? After being forced to retire form the corporate world. I decided to turn my hobby into a business. I have somewhat of an idea of where to price my work. As a newby, my fear is that I will run into one of those pros I meet in humdreds of workshops only to have my camera mashed to the floor, for charging too low a price. We have tons of questions and some times we may get the cart before the horse. When I do I hope some Pro will guide, and not bash me for being new to the business. after all isn't sharing knowledge what this site is all about? If not I joined in error. I just sent in my application to ASMP and I am a member of 2 photo clubs. Not all of us newbies are as bad of your email reply states. Those that are will fall by the wayside. Thank you all for your input and taking the time to even read this. I am in this to stay,but taking it slow. Michael F.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Hi Michael.... Yes the aggression metered out by some members is unethical. This is supposed to be a forum of discussion, not personal abuse. You say your piece, and I say mine. That's how forums work. One can't help but wonder why these so-called professionals want everything their own way. Some are not open minded at all and expect the industry to run like it has for too many years. Any comment or opinion of "change" is met with violent rhetoric. As previously stated, I think this smacks of "protectionism" especially with the almost union-like pushing of belonging to an Association (to encourage the fixing of prices). We live in a free trade environment.... creatively and economically... so why the anguish of charging a fair price in a fair market? I wish you luck in your new endeavours in the world of Photography and hope you never run into one of these greedy monsters who wish to be paid 100 times over, and feel it is their God-given right to rip-off the general public and business alike (even after being paid their quoted fee including all expenses).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Leighty |
Roy, I hardly think this is about greed. It is a BUSINESS principle that is consistent with the remainder of the art world. WHICH...by the way was your original question. How do I price? You obviously don't agree with the answers you received and choose to give away whatever it is you do at whatever price. That is your god given right to price any way you like. So go do it! If you had already made up your mind on how you were going to price, why did you ask us? It seems you did not want the answer, you were just looking for a fight - which you got and now your not happy or satisfied. There are many experienced photographers that replied and you agrued with every one of them that did not agree with you. You have obviously got enough money to buy a camera and wish to make a few dollars with it. Good for you. Let's let this die. We have antagonized each other enough to the detriment of all the other readers. You got an answer, but you don't like the advice. Do it your way, then. Maybe someday you will feel your work is very valuable, and when you do, let us know how you priced it please.
|
|
|
|
||
|
RAY NADEAU |
this is all bull hocky!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
To Tom: You haven't read the original question. It wasn't "me" who asked the first question? All I did was respond. To Ray: I agree 100%. In conclusion: Let's let this die.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||