Is anyone else really fed up by everyone wanting photographers to work for free?

Jayst84 said:
Careful now, we can't be going down that road again for the 13th time this year :p

(OT. I always just assumed that you were a 'pro' Les. Purely based on how good your shots are, easily in my 'top 5 TP posters who I think are awesome' anyway :D /suckup).
Click to expand...


I think there is maybe some confusion between 'professional' and 'profession' , while I wholeheartedly agree there are professional photographers out there i.e. those who earn all or a good part of their income from photography, it doesn't automatically follow that photography is a 'profession', similarly there are amateur and professional footballers, but no one (I hope) would ever consider football to be a 'profession', although some (like some photographers) are highly skilled in their craft.

And no, I'm not a 'pro', although I do sell a few of my images, and thanks for those kind words, they are appreciated :)
 
petemc said:
Oh come on. You know what I meant. ..............
Click to expand...

WeddingHack said:
??? What's the use of artistic vision without the knowing how to twiddle the buttons to create your vision with the camera ?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong guys, I appreciate taking pride in your profession and knowing how to master and bend the tools to your will. For me, it is all about knowing that if I can imagine a shot, I can achieve it.

I have seen people though that know next to nothing about the techy bits of photography consistently get great shots that are exactly what they wanted to get.

There are musicians out there making the most amazing music that can't read a note of it. They are all still artists and in some cases successful professionals.

I'm all for knowing your trade but I think to rate ourselves on the depth of our technical knowhow is what leads to these discussions about whether we are as valid a professional as a lawyer.
 
You're not getting my point. There probably are people taking great photos with fully automatic cameras and kudos to them. My point was the people who take terrible photos using there camera on full auto and then call themselves a photographer. The ones who are simply letting technology do everything for them with no clue at all producing truely awful photographs because they have no idea and then calling themselves a professional photographer. Like those people using say Clickpic to do web design.
 
dazzajl said:
I'm all for knowing your trade but I think to rate ourselves on the depth of our technical knowhow is what leads to these discussions about whether we are as valid a professional as a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Photography as a profession is about being able to consistently produce the results under any conditions - to do that you need more than an eye or a vision, you need the technical knowledge to back it up.
 
this is a great thread!!!!

photography suffers in the same way as every other job/hobby/interest/profession out there. some people are naturally gifted, some people work hard to become good, some know more about it than others etc. etc. some are always gonna be rubbish, but will talk a good game and get work and probably have happy customers who don't know any better. some are proficient with their equipment but don't have an eye for detail or the different perspective that makes shots stand out.....

i guess the popularity of DSLR's have oppened the market up in ways that must be good for photography, ie. bringing new talent in, and bad from the aspect that everyone thinks they are the next lord lichfield cause they've got a nice new camera in their hands....

i think the popularity of dslr's has maybe reduced the esteem of pro's in the eyes of the general public. it must be tough for new pro's setting out to make a living in the industry.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I don't see how £10k profit per month is not easy to achieve on Weddings (and a few other things), once you are good at it.
Click to expand...

Depends where you're based. Whilst £2k per wedding isn't a problem, getting 5 a month can be unless you've got a high population to serve. In Somerset the ratio of cheaper togs to weddings is quite high and £2k weddings are thin on the ground so £10k a month from weddings isn't realistic, would that it were :lol:
 
pxl8 said:
Depends where you're based. Whilst £2k per wedding isn't a problem, getting 5 a month can be unless you've got a high population to serve. In Somerset the ratio of cheaper togs to weddings is quite high and £2k weddings are thin on the ground so £10k a month from weddings isn't realistic, would that it were :lol:
Click to expand...

Understand completely, but if you are happy to cover a massive area (dare I say, nationwide), then you could make a fortune.

Sounds unrealistic, but I for one would travel 400 miles and back to shoot a wedding, for £2K, No problem whatsoever.

Gary.
 
pxl8 said:
Normally I'll get the "it'll be good exposure" line and my reply is that, unfortunately Sainsburys don't accept it :D
Click to expand...

petemc said:
"Unfortunately I don't really work for credit. It doesn't pay the bills. I can't use credit in Tesco." Playfully of course but they get the point.
Click to expand...

So that's Sainsburys and Tescos out. Do any of the supermarkets take photo credits as payment? It would solve a lot of problems :lol:
 
2k for a wedding 400 miles away........ i'm guessing that by the time you've had a journey there before hand to scope out the venu and meet the couple etc. travel there the night before, accomodation, petrol etc, etc, you've eaten into the 2k by quite a chunk.

you'd also have to be pretty good to be charging 2k for a wedding up here.......
 
nowler said:
2k for a wedding 400 miles away........ i'm guessing that by the time you've had a journey there before hand to scope out the venu and meet the couple etc. travel there the night before, accomodation, petrol etc, etc, you've eaten into the 2k by quite a chunk.

you'd also have to be pretty good to be charging 2k for a wedding up here.......
Click to expand...

£200 petrol, and staying somwhere can be cheap (travellodge / campervan :)).

Also, Edinburgh is full of money - shedloads of it, just marketing yourself to these individuals.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Understand completely, but if you are happy to cover a massive area (dare I say, nationwide), then you could make a fortune.
Click to expand...

But then you face the problem of competing with every tog nationwide, not just the local ones. I get a massive hit rate from google when the search contains somerset, taunton, etc. You'd probably have to spend a good part of the profit from that £2k on advertising, travel, staying over, etc. The profit margin on doing cheaper local weddings could well be higher.
 
pxl8 said:
But then you face the problem of competing with every tog nationwide, not just the local ones. I get a massive hit rate from google when the search contains somerset, taunton, etc. You'd probably have to spend a good part of the profit from that £2k on advertising, travel, staying over, etc. The profit margin on doing cheaper local weddings could well be higher.
Click to expand...

I guess you are right. We paid close to £3K for our wedding shots, around the time I bought my first camera! I really didn't know much about all this, and I liked the album and portfolio.

Now I know people spend more, but I guess you need to be **** hot to get the work.

For the record, I think anyone here could make a better go of my wedding photos:) Ooops

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Understand completely, but if you are happy to cover a massive area (dare I say, nationwide), then you could make a fortune.

Sounds unrealistic, but I for one would travel 400 miles and back to shoot a wedding, for £2K, No problem whatsoever.

Gary.
Click to expand...

10K profit per month = £120K profit per year, which would need a minimum turnover of 150K, probably more like £180K

£150K / lets say 50 weddings per year = £3K per wedding - not unachievable, but you'll find there are a only handful of wedding photographers in the UK averaging over £3K per wedding.
 
WeddingHack said:
10K profit per month = £120K profit per year, which would need a minimum turnover of 150K, probably more like £180K

£150K / lets say 50 weddings per year = £3K per wedding - not unachievable, but you'll find there are a only handful of wedding photographers in the UK averaging over £3K per wedding.
Click to expand...

Understood, and I do appreciate what you are saying. Do you get togs who "employ" other togs for a hefty cut? You always find some people will readily work for someone else, but haven't the balls to go it alone for whatever reason...

Gary.
 
Just a random question, on average, how much do photographers earn a year? I.e. the ones that cover the olympics etc?
 
I think you'd need to be **** hot to keep getting the work, plenty of folks could BS their way into a few high paying jobs but word would soon spread. Only the other week I heard tell of a tog who'd set up a website full of shots he'd pinched from all over the net and was charging silly money on the basis of those.

Hmmm. heading way off topic now... sorry bout that :(
 
EdinburghGary said:
Understood, and I do appreciate what you are saying. Do you get togs who "employ" other togs for a hefty cut? You always find some people will readily work for someone else, but haven't the balls to go it alone for whatever reason...

Gary.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of photographers that employ other photographers - but I'll think you'll find the words 'hefty cut' don't appear too often in their contracts :)
 
WeddingHack said:
There are plenty of photographers that employ other photographers - but I'll think you'll find the words 'hefty cut' don't appear too often in their contracts :)
Click to expand...

Depends which side of the contract you're reading :lol:
 
pxl8 said:
I think you'd need to be **** hot to keep getting the work, plenty of folks could BS their way into a few high paying jobs but word would soon spread. Only the other week I heard tell of a tog who'd set up a website full of shots he'd pinched from all over the net and was charging silly money on the basis of those.

Hmmm. heading way off topic now... sorry bout that :(
Click to expand...

Some people will do anything for a quick few bob...:cuckoo:


Its something to aspire to I reckon, I presume no-one just wakes up and can suddenly shoot weddings at that level. I guess it takes patience, effort, an understanding of how light works and how to take advantage of it (ie, how to really nail a photo), and a good head to keep everything organised.

Photography has for me at least, become a bit of a passion - and whilst I may not be good at it, I really hope and prey that with practise, I will become good, and if I am really lucky and try my hardest, REALLY good. It's at that point (if it ever arrives), when I hope to take advantage of any commercial gain, if possible.

I already have a job which pays well, I would LOVE a job which pays well and brings be satisfaction / enjoyment to boot. That's one of my main goals in life.

Gary.
 
WeddingHack said:
10K profit per month = £120K profit per year, which would need a minimum turnover of 150K, probably more like £180K

£150K / lets say 50 weddings per year = £3K per wedding - not unachievable, but you'll find there are a only handful of wedding photographers in the UK averaging over £3K per wedding.
Click to expand...

Jeff Ascough does only 40 weddings a year, even if he has more time spare he doesn't take on any more bookings.
 
pxl8 said:
...Only the other week I heard tell of a tog who'd set up a website full of shots he'd pinched from all over the net and was charging silly money on the basis of those...
Click to expand...

Haha, sued much?

EdinburghGary said:
...I guess it takes patience, effort, an understanding of how light works and how to take advantage of it (ie, how to really nail a photo), and a good head to keep everything organised...
Click to expand...

I reckon it's pretty 'easy' to be average, well, maybe not average, but to give the standard couple shots that they're happy with. To be really good (WeddingHack, et al) or great, you need to be so good and sure of your skills, that you can adapt, adapt, adapt and not just deal with any situation, be it of light, weather or mother-in-law, but turn that situation to your advantage.

For someone of more skill and balls than me I think.
 
My view is that everything, materials, products, professional services and unprofessional services are only worth what someone will pay for them.
If you are not offered enough then either you are not offering something with intrisic value or you have to work harder to persuade the customer of the value of your product. That's where marketing comes in.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Its something to aspire to I reckon, I presume no-one just wakes up and can suddenly shoot weddings at that level. I guess it takes patience, effort, an understanding of how light works and how to take advantage of it (ie, how to really nail a photo), and a good head to keep everything organised.
Click to expand...

Half, actually more than half, is getting the right weddings. The reality is most weddings don't suit "top of the game" shots for one reason or another. It's a little hard to take the shots you aspire to when it's chucking it down and you're stuck in the skittle alley of the duck and grouse. Twice this year I've had weddings at top notch venues with a couple that wanted to go off and spend an hour doing some magazine style shots away from everyone else. Both times the weather ruined it. Them's the breaks :(
 
Seems like the talk is turning to Wedding photos here, so thought to drop in and share my views on this (and the 'free' stuff talk).

Having lived in the U.K for ages, (worked as a Chef) I've seen my fair share of weddings and having talked to the photographers. And really wondered why the couples are willing to pay 'silly money' for the snaps.
Since leaving U.K and having lived in few other countries in Europe, the thing I've noticed it that nowhere else in Europe (from what I've found out) are the couples willing to pay such huge amounts of money for wedding photos.
Also, for example in Scandinavia the wedding photos equal just the shots at the church and maybe one in the studio. there is not much call for photographers to go to reception or other stuff to take pictures.. those sort of pictures are taken by the guests and friends..
Just having talked to few guys who do weddings over the summer in Finland and (they are darn good at it) their best paid wedding of the summer was 1500 Euros... and said that an average wedding might get them (if they are lucky) 500 Euros.

So my advice to those who want to make money on weddings...stay in the U.K. There are plenty of 'fools' ;-) there who will part with LOTS of money to get pictures of their wedding day.
 
Jayst84 said:
Haha, sued much?

The togs who shots were nicked got the site shut down so I don't think it was as bad as it could have been. I don't know the details, just heard in passing from another tog.
Click to expand...
 
GooGaBu said:
Seems like the talk is turning to Wedding photos here, so thought to drop in and share my views on this (and the 'free' stuff talk).

Having lived in the U.K for ages, (worked as a Chef) I've seen my fair share of weddings and having talked to the photographers. And really wondered why the couples are willing to pay 'silly money' for the snaps.
Since leaving U.K and having lived in few other countries in Europe, the thing I've noticed it that nowhere else in Europe (from what I've found out) are the couples willing to pay such huge amounts of money for wedding photos.
Also, for example in Scandinavia the wedding photos equal just the shots at the church and maybe one in the studio. there is not much call for photographers to go to reception or other stuff to take pictures.. those sort of pictures are taken by the guests and friends..
Just having talked to few guys who do weddings over the summer in Finland and (they are darn good at it) their best paid wedding of the summer was 1500 Euros... and said that an average wedding might get them (if they are lucky) 500 Euros.

So my advice to those who want to make money on weddings...stay in the U.K. There are plenty of 'fools' ;-) there who will part with LOTS of money to get pictures of their wedding day.
Click to expand...


Apparently, the USA market for wedding togs is insane too, read a story about one guy, charging $25,000 per shoot.

Gary.
 
Now are the wedding snaps REALLY worth that much... *hmmm*
I don't think so.. but, hey if people have too much money to spend. Then go ahead and spend it :-)
I certainly wouldn't take a loan (like a friend of mine did) to pay for the wedding photos.

But point taken about the U.S being a wedding-market. Haven't done much research into this, so I am sure there are other places that wedding photos sell for 1000's
 
I'm another one with Raymond. My partner is a solicitor and specialises in company law so is also qualified in accountancy. That little lot took 7 years of study.

I don't know of any photographic qualification that takes that level of study. They also have to practice to a certain standard and pay fees every year to continue practicing. Again, there is no equivalent in photography.

Yes you can pick up a camera and with talent, hard work and a good business head (I'll skip the dangly bits if you don't mind Gary!;)) you can craft a business out of it and be successful too. It still does not equate with medicine, law or architecture though.
 
AliB said:
I'm another one with Raymond. My partner is a solicitor and specialises in company law so is also qualified in accountancy. That little lot took 7 years of study.

I don't know of any photographic qualification that takes that level of study. They also have to practice to a certain standard and pay fees every year to continue practicing. Again, there is no equivalent in photography.

Yes you can pick up a camera and with talent, hard work and a good business head (I'll skip the dangly bits if you don't mind Gary!;)) you can craft a business out of it and be successful too. It still does not equate with medicine, law or architecture though.
Click to expand...

Ladies have dangly bits too!!! A bit bigger too, normally!! :)

Gary.
 
Do they dangle? Should they dangle? :eek:
 
AliB said:
I'm another one with Raymond. My partner is a solicitor and specialises in company law so is also qualified in accountancy. That little lot took 7 years of study.

I don't know of any photographic qualification that takes that level of study. They also have to practice to a certain standard and pay fees every year to continue practicing. Again, there is no equivalent in photography.

Yes you can pick up a camera and with talent, hard work and a good business head (I'll skip the dangly bits if you don't mind Gary!;)) you can craft a business out of it and be successful too. It still does not equate with medicine, law or architecture though.
Click to expand...


:woot:

I think the bottomline is that you can pick up a camera and call yourself a photographer. Picking up a pen doesn't make you a lawyer, architect or doctor. You can't walk into those jobs, not only the job title is statute protected, you just can't even able to wing it.
 
So picking up a camera makes you creative?
 
I don't think that it's just the photographic world that has this problem - there seems to be an expectation of free work or "mates' rates" in a number of industries and professions. I work as a naval architect (yacht and ship designer). I spent 4 years (expensive) studying at undergraduate level, then additional post-graduate study, and a lot of time learning the "job". I get a lot of people contacting me who want free advice/help/services!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top