First name, Last name facebook photography pages

C

connersz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,468
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
So we all know what they are, how easily some of them come about, and some of us have one ourselves.

But I just came across this one and it did make me laugh! Here is the description...

"I am by no means a professional photographer but I have just got my new camera and need to try it out... Family members are getting slightly grumpy having a camera pointed at them all the time soooo..."

Watermarks, pricing, the whole shebang!

The prices are much better than mine as well, only about £20 for a photoshoot by the sounds of things, I can't compete with that.
 
Its the way of the world in all forms of photography... I do sports that are licenced...or sports/events where only i can photo... or sports events where you need top end equipment to get anyhting decent...these are the things I do to make it too hard for anyone to step on my toes.... portraits i am guessing is the one thats hard to stop anyone else doing and charging :(
 
KIPAX said:
Its the way of the world in all forms of photography... I do sports that are licenced...or sports/events where only i can photo... or sports events where you need top end equipment to get anyhting decent...these are the things I do to make it too hard for anyone to step on my toes.... portraits i am guessing is the one thats hard to stop anyone else doing and charging :(
Click to expand...

Yes you're right. It makes me wonder if I should just knock my prices down to £5 a shoot and do next to no editing and throw the creative license out the window, I doubt my clients would ever notice how rubbish the photos are right?

But then again most previous clients of mine have expected a certain high level of quality and for the others that didn't know what to expect and who were happy, should they end up booking someone who is just testing a new camera then they will probably notice the difference.

And yes, the photos did look like someone just testing a new camera.
 
But you will get people who dont know paying 20 quid and sticking them all on facebook and being happy... I see some of the dross they post..paid for or not.. they are over the moon with them.. and its complete and utter garbage... head/shoulders/shadow :(
 
KIPAX said:
But you will get people who dont know paying 20 quid and sticking them all on facebook and being happy... I see some of the dross they post..paid for or not.. they are over the moon with them.. and its complete and utter garbage... head/shoulders/shadow :(
Click to expand...
But why are they happy? because they paid next to nothing? the don't know they are garbage? It's just friends of the photographer on that page so they won't have a bad word to say?

Probably a bit of each.
 
:runaway: I was just talking about this !
I was taking some photos of my partners nieces and nephews for her grandmother last weekend, So i went to her house set up studio ( 3 strobes and a hilite background trail etc) one of the mums said eeeeeee why do you need all this stuff to take a photos ? I take great photos on my Iphone and get dozens of likes everyday...she then went on to say she has been asked to do a wedding for her friend as she is that good :) She then ranted on "Its not about the camera its about making them look good in instagram..". I asked if she had a DSLR for the wedding,she went no, but I am getting the new Iphone 5....Some people just don't have a clue on the work involved making a quality photo ( or the expense). She charges £10 for a shoot.

Also may i add...I was at my friends wedding last year, her pro photographer turned up with a Fuji film bridge camera....yep she booked him through Facebook.
 
Last edited:
its facebook... if its free or cheap then its great.... if its for the front room wall then diff story? ... but most want pics to show off.. on facebook..
 
Orange_crunch said:
.Some people just don't have a clue on the work involved making a quality photo ( or the expense). She charges £10 for a shoot.
.
Click to expand...

they dont know or care...if it comes out OK at 800 pixels long then they are happy...any pic can be made to look decent at that size....
 
I think it's a case of as has been said people just don't know crap photos....some of the dross I see my none photographer friends post on Facebook is just sad, one favourite is the camera phone photo of a photo on a computer screen...
 
KIPAX said:
they dont know or care...if it comes out OK at 800 pixels long then they are happy...any pic can be made to look decent at that size....
Click to expand...

I was amazed at how many people didn't have a PC to view the photos I took, Everyone had a smart phone or tablet and were taking photos of the prints I did ( one even asked could I take a pic of ya camera screen on the day)
 
MWHCVT said:
I think it's a case of as has been said people just don't know crap photos....some of the dross I see my none photographer friends post on Facebook is just sad, one favourite is the camera phone photo of a photo on a computer screen...
Click to expand...


yep seen them... and if you offered to sell them the photo there not interested.. because they are happy wiht there mobile grab of it :(
 
KIPAX said:
yep seen them... and if you offered to sell them the photo there not interested.. because they are happy wiht there mobile grab of it :(
Click to expand...

Exactly...I've said it a number of times the vast majority of the general public neither know or care about the quality of the image, they care about the memory it creates/stimulates

There is a company that specialises in club/night life photos I use "specialises" in it's loosest term as frankly most the photos are pretty horrendous but they make there money in a number of ways, firstly the venues pay a flat fee for a photographer to attend, then they sell key rings that are available to collect the following week..the venues like this as there is a good chance the punters will be back in spending the next weekend as they have a key ring to collect, as part of the fee the venues get access to the photos, but here's the kicker, the company only put on Facebook the photos that they have made sales out of...this encourages purchase, finally the kit used is dirt cheap as in really basic bridge cameras...now as someone who I'd like to think I can tell a decent photo from dross I'd say 95% Would not make it past my first cull phase of editing but they do sell and this is because as I say most people don't know a good photo..

But then look what most phones produce so is it hardly surprising that people don't know a good photo
 
Jayst84 said:
It's completely outrageous - next thing you know there will be people exchanging cash for goods and services they want!
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: I was more raising the issue that most none photographers don't understand why a photo is sub standard or for that matter care that it is sub standard
 
MWHCVT said:
or for that matter care that it is sub standard
Click to expand...

Exactly. People can "pay 20 quid and be happy with it", so, what's the problem? Someone paid for something they wanted and was happy with the service and product - everyone's happy (except photographers who spend too long on internet forums complaining about things :D ).
 
MWHCVT said:
... or for that matter care that it is sub standard
Click to expand...
Define "sub standard". I bet you drive a sub standard car. I know I do. (Mine is a VW Golf.) I wonder whether Aston Martin and Ferrari salesmen get together on internet forums discussing why people are apparently so happy to buy sub standard cars?
 
If no one knows what a good photo is then surely were all wasting a lot of time?.
 
connersz said:
If no one knows what a good photo is then surely were all wasting a lot of time?.
Click to expand...
Who said **nobody** knows? But if you are trying to sell "good" photos to people who do not know what "good" photos are, and you are trying to charge a price which reflects the fact that they are "good" photos - then yes, you are wasting your time.
 
We all see things differently and like different things so can someone please define good?

I sometimes use photographs of incidents in training. now often they are not what I would term as "good photographically", but a) they get over the point I want, b) they are the best/only photographs of a particular incident.

You have to remember most people don't see photography as we do, most just want a photo of themselves and or there mates having a good time or showing there friends where they have been. They are not bothered if a horizon is straight or there is shadow over half there best mates face.
 
munch said:
We all see things differently and like different things so can someone please define good?

I sometimes use photographs of incidents in training. now often they are not what I would term as "good photographically", but a) they get over the point I want, b) they are the best/only photographs of a particular incident.

You have to remember most people don't see photography as we do, most just want a photo of themselves and or there mates having a good time or showing there friends where they have been. They are not bothered if a horizon is straight or there is shadow over half there best mates face.
Click to expand...
So you're basically saying the same thing. If they're not bother then why do we bother.

You say we all see things differently, but if the vast majority of clients don't see what the photographer does then what's the point in bothering.
 
connersz said:
... but if the vast majority of clients don't see what the photographer does then what's the point in bothering.
Click to expand...
You're doing it again. You're the only person saying that "the vast majority of clients" don't value photography.

I think the issue is that you (not photographers in general - you) have have the wrong clients and/or the wrong business model.
 
StewartR said:
You're doing it again. You're the only person saying that "the vast majority of clients" don't value photography.

I think the issue is that you (not photographers in general - you) have have the wrong clients and/or the wrong business model.
Click to expand...
Ok, Thanks for your input.
 
Loads of people think that a Gregg's pastie or McBreakfast is a reasonable start to the day. It doesn't hurt proper restaurants.

The only issue is when someone can't see the value difference and mistakes a quality supplier as someone who's just overcharging.

I've said it before, but people often equate good photography with marketability. Everything has a market value, the skill is in finding and exploiting that value.

A mates missus has just decided she wants to 'shoot a few portraits' as a side income. A mutual friend commented that his FB feed was full of 'professional photos' he genuinely couldn't tell the difference between on camera flash shot too close to a background and my studio work. I'm no David Bailey but if I didn't think it was funny I'd cry.
 
That is why photography is a hobby for me hehe. Doesn't pay as well as a software programmer hehe
 
StewartR said:
Define "sub standard". I bet you drive a sub standard car. I know I do. (Mine is a VW Golf.) I wonder whether Aston Martin and Ferrari salesmen get together on internet forums discussing why people are apparently so happy to buy sub standard cars?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to photos that have inherent faults such as actually being out of focus or under/over exposed or white balance issue...this is not even getting into the mine field that is composition etc

A better analogy IMO would have been to same spec cars so what's the difference, well one passed its mot the other didn't
 
connersz said:
So we all know what they are, how easily some of them come about, and some of us have one ourselves.

But I just came across this one and it did make me laugh! Here is the description...

"I am by no means a professional photographer but I have just got my new camera and need to try it out... Family members are getting slightly grumpy having a camera pointed at them all the time soooo..."

Watermarks, pricing, the whole shebang!

The prices are much better than mine as well, only about £20 for a photoshoot by the sounds of things, I can't compete with that.
Click to expand...

Do you also whinge when people go to McDonalds and spend £5 on a meal rather than going to a Michellin star restaurant?
 
CharlotteM said:
Do you also whinge when people go to McDonalds and spend £5 on a meal rather than going to a Michellin star restaurant?
Click to expand...
Well if McDonald's are now advertising the same food as the Michelin star restaurant for £5 and should I own a Michelin star restaurant then that would be cause to whinge.
 
connersz said:
Well if McDonald's are now advertising the same food as the Michelin star restaurant for £5 and should I own a Michelin star restaurant then that would be cause to whinge.
Click to expand...
If you're both providing the same product, yours is overpriced.

It's harsh, but that's how markets work. McDonalds don't sell the same food as Michelin starred restaurants, they sell crap, and if a local 'posh' restaurant is selling McDonalds quality food and trying to charge £30 a plate, they'll go bust. If they want to charge £30 a plate, they have to produce quality food that people can't make themselves or get from elsewhere cheaper. Good restaurants don't compete on price, they provide a quality dining experience. In service industries, that's how it works.

So if you want to charge 4x what your 'competition' is charging, you have to provide a 4x the quality of product. It's simple and I'm concerned you can't see how simple it is. The fact is, people who are happy with meh pictures for £20 aren't my customers, so I don't care if they think I'm overpriced.
 
The point is that they are saying it's the same food but one is cheaper but the people buying it can't tell the difference.
 
connersz said:
The point is that they are saying it's the same food but one is cheaper but the people buying it can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

If the people buying it can't tell the difference, they're not the customers of the restaurant. McDonalds isn't stealing custom from them, it's not promising something it can't deliver, it's selling food everyone knows is crap at prices that mean it's obviously crap.

Cheap crap photographers are not your competition. Ignore them, they will either go away, or learn, grow and up their prices to become your competition.

There are occasions we all feel they're hurting us, but the truth is, they're not. Educate all your potential customers about what makes you great value, tell them they're worth the superior service, because they have an educated eye and can see the difference between a snap and a beautiful photograph. If they don't believe you, they're not your customer. They deserve to eat McDonalds.
 
If someone wants a £20 photo session and you don't provide one they're not coming to you.

If your customers don't care about a decent photo or can't tell the difference either improve :) or don't have them as customers.
 
Jayst84 said:
Exactly. People can "pay 20 quid and be happy with it", so, what's the problem? Someone paid for something they wanted and was happy with the service and product - everyone's happy (except photographers who spend too long on internet forums complaining about things :D ).
Click to expand...


I think it's called business.

The problem is that as things become automated, what used to be the preserve of a specialist is now available to everyone (this applies to many thing, not just photography).

When that happens, the business model which was created for a specialist trade is no longer valid.

cowboy said:
If your customers don't care about a decent photo or can't tell the difference either improve :) or don't have them as customers.
Click to expand...

Or even better, have hundreds of them as customers!

Phil V said:
They deserve to eat McDonalds.
Click to expand...

That's going too far. I wouldn't wish that on anyone!!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
..Or even better, have hundreds of them as customers!
Click to expand...

The one time your usual comparison with 'tradesmen' actually fits and works against you. If the perceived value of a car service goes from £150 to £20, the mechanic can't simply 'up his game' and service 8 a day instead of 2, and a good portrait studio can't just increase productivity by a factor of 8 to maintain an income either.

Each customer costs us to acquire, demands a fixed amount of time to serve, and so there's a break even point that we charge to stay in business.

Reducing costs isn't a panacea.
 
Well, I wasn't suggesting the same product/service for less money.

100 customers paying £20 each for £20 worth of work is the same turnover as two customers paying £100 each for £100 of work.

In some cases it is easier to sell the £20 package than the £100 package (it's the the McDonald's vs. posh restaurant analogy again).

And if you don't like my description of photography as a trade, what else would you describe it as?


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
...And if you don't like my description of photography as a trade, what else would you describe it as?
Steve.
Click to expand...
I'll leave the maths for now (mines bad, yours is worse);)

Photographers are artists, like musicians, painters, potters, sculptors.

That's why they get the 'professional' tag, because they get paid to do something that other people do for fun.

It's not a snobbery thing, I have a trade, I'm a qualified mechanic, I don't see photography as 'better'. Photography is both art and craft (like music etc.). Whereas mechanic / plumber / joiner are craftsmen (or women).
 
connersz said:
, I can't compete with that.
Click to expand...

so don't try, Lamborghini don't feel threatened by Proton, Harrods aren't too bothered by Lidl , Armani aren't that worried about TK Maxx

competing on price alone is always a mugs game and a race to the bottom - for a winning business model base your competition on quality and a USP
 
Steve Smith said:
Oh yes!! Well, you get the idea I hope!

Lets call it two customers paying £1000 each.

Steve.
Click to expand...
But back to my point, acquiring customers is generally difficult, and it's not necessarily easy to bag 100 customers, even if you only want £20 from them.

Clearly there are volume photographers, it's a different business model, and it's not a universal answer to the fact that some customers aren't capable of paying or happy to pay more than £20.

As I said earlier, it's not about those customers, generally speaking photography is a luxury product, so we really should be pandering to the desires of that market. And creating a market for cheap photography is likely not worthwhile, I can't be arsed to do the maths, but my guess is that the £20 portrait session (even if it was possible to get enough customers) isn't viable.
 
that's essentially what venture did - and as they clearly demonstrated the only way to make it work was savage upsell and swift turnover.

The trouble with pile it high , sell it cheap is that you are continually on a knife edge profit margin - it can work but its also awfully likely to go pop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top