The VALUE of photography... please learn about it before you make a mistake

[Jim Roof]

This discussion has gone on for a long time. Is it the camera or the photographer who creates the high value associated with an image? Who is the buyer and can he/she differentiate between a snap shot and a piece of art that was captured and post processed professionally. For sure, the lowered cost of capture from a drone vs. a helicopter will reduce the cost to capture, but the buyer is paying for the result not the process.

Pricing is also a direct function of the market you submit your work to. The image below would warrant a very high price if it were a custom shot for someone living in a large home in the local geography. It would earn much less, but with many more sales, if it were to become a puzzle or post card. In either of these cases, the camera or the camera platform (plane, helicopter, or drone) will not even be a consideration in the market price.

View attachment 79582

One thing to keep in mind when asking this age old question is...

People will pay for what sets them apart. Look at the photography and graphic design in ads produced in the 1940's and 1950's. The 'quality' is laughable by today's standards. It's not just style. It is capability.

Shifts in technology have led to an increase in the technical quality of imaging, but I would be willing to bet that the old 80/20 rule still applies. 80% of professional photographers are making 20% of the income and the other 20% are making 80%. That ratio seems to be prevalent in so many things.

And, look to sports for an analogy. Excellence always comes from achieving something that is BETTER than average. The average today is much higher than it was 20 years ago - and the average 20 years ago was much better than it was 40 years ago. The moral of the story is still the same. Learn what your skills are worth (by no means take a BUYER'S word for ANYTHING, and that includes these outfits that will give you 19 bucks to shoot aerial views of a house. You KNOW they are marking that up and maybe marking it WAY up.). And keep striving to set yourself apart in creativity, quality and service.

Hobbyists don't need to be anything other than hobbyists, but I think there is no harm in informing people that there is perhaps more value to their hobby than they might be aware of. This is even true of professionals. I knew a photographer who had some interior shots of a building and he told me he was going to ask 150.00 per image to license them to a building materials manufacturer. It just so happened that I knew the potential buyer - and I knew that he was about 600.00 off. I told him he should ask for 750.00. He sort of chickened out, but did get 600.00 per image.

I am not trying to be snobby. I am trying to interject some new information into the equation.

 

[Jim Roof]

Very good thread! I'm studying for my Part 107 test so I can do some side work. I consider my time and ability to be valuable so I don't want to give away my service (well, maybe for close friends ). I've been doing research to see what others are changing so I can get a a good idea where to set my prices.

Question about who owns the photos. A friend wants me to take pictures of his lighthouse. It's something that everyone takes pictures of but most can't get as close as I can (it's out in the water). I do the job for him for a set price. Can I sell the photos to others later? I don't think it would be any different than taking photos of it on my own and selling large prints to others that want them. Don't know how all that works.

That is a question that comes up often with people who shoot buildings. I am old school. I say that inanimate objects do not have rights. OWNERS have rights, but those rights have yet to legally extend to protecting things that are out in the open from being photographed. Some will talk about 'property releases' and such. There is really no such thing from a legal standpoint. However, courtesy may be a worthy consideration.

In general, your use of the photos you produce is assumed to be broad and wide UNLESS if infringes on someone's privacy, somehow harms a trademark, or is used to imply that a person or corporation is making a commercial endorsement. Copyright laws were extended in the early 1990's to include architecture, but one must keep in mind that a PHOTO of a building is NOT a COPY of a building. Those laws were enacted to keep other designers from ripping off architectural designs and actually COPYING a building from the ground up.

If you want to know a good way to shoot this lighthouse and retain the possibility to sell images or license the photos to someone else, you could use language such as "Photographer releases the following photographs on a non-exclusive and non-transferable basis to [buyer] for all uses except [exclusions go here - resale, merchandising, annual reports, paid advertising, whatever...]". The term 'non-exclusive' states your right to sell the photography elsewhere. The term 'non-transferable' means the buyer cannot sell the images or give them away.

Check out the ASMP for some help with this. I like to keep it simple, but some like to make it iron-clad.

 

[John Decker]

By far the most interesting thread I've read in 12 months. But if you want hobbyists to stop flooding the market can you tell us how to monetise our shots properly - what are the good companies that deal in stock photos? Google doesn't always help.

 

[ems12a]

I have made my living as a professional photographer in one way or another for the past 30 years. The industry has changed that's for sure. Jobs that used to pay over 5K are now a few hundred bucks. I am seeing prices for drone shoots going for 150 to 200 dollars.


My real issue is the advent of photoshop. It's hard to tell what is real and what is "photoshopped". I shoot in RAW/NEF and use lightroom to play with what the sensor caught. I don't add anything or take anything away except for the odd sensor spot.

I see some really beautiful photos but again it's so hard to tell if there real of not.

 

[ems12a]

By far the most interesting thread I've read in 12 months. But if you want hobbyists to stop flooding the market can you tell us how to monetise our shots properly - what are the good companies that deal in stock photos? Google doesn't always help.

If you want to make money in stock photography you have to take a LOT of photos and use a LOT of stock photo sites. You can't list a few photos on one or two stock sites and expect to make money.

In fact most "stock photographers" have thousands of photos on hundreds of sites and still don't make a lot of money.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I have made my living as a professional photographer in one way or another for the past 30 years. The industry has changed that's for sure. Jobs that used to pay over 5K are now a few hundred bucks. I am seeing prices for drone shoots going for 150 to 200 dollars.


My real issue is the advent of photoshop. It's hard to tell what is real and what is "photoshopped". I shoot in RAW/NEF and use lightroom to play with what the sensor caught. I don't add anything or take anything away except for the odd sensor spot.

I see some really beautiful photos but again it's so hard to tell if there real of not.

"Real or Not" is no longer relavent unless you are reporting or documenting. Photoshop opens photography to more artistic interpretation and that is wonderful. For example, the moon in a shot is "too small" for the artist's preferences or lacks definition because it is over exposed. It is entirely acceptable for the "artist" to plug in a moon from his/her Lightroom stock files. I love to refer to my Photo Club members as "artists" as they develop their own creative styles. Art should be judged on creative or artistic merit. News reporting and documentation on accuracy of what was before the camera.

 

[ems12a]

"Real or Not" is no longer relavent unless you are reporting or documenting. Photoshop opens photography to more artistic interpretation and that is wonderful. For example, the moon in a shot is "too small" for the artist's preferences or lacks definition because it is over exposed. It is entirely acceptable for the "artist" to plug in a moon from his/her Lightroom stock files. I love to refer to my Photo Club members as "artists" as they develop their own creative styles. Art should be judged on creative or artistic merit. News reporting and documentation on accuracy of what was before the camera.

That's a bunch of rubbish lol.

If I take a photo of a lighthouse with a plain blue sky and add dramatic clouds I have changed what I have captured. If all I have to do is go to the beach at night and take a shot of the horizon and add a blazing sunset then I have not taken that picture that I present. If I go and take a photo of the moon and I don't like its size then I try again. Adding a moon from "stock" is just lazy! LOL

It's one thing to touch up a photo with lightroom, exposure, shadows and saturation, it's another to completely add things that you did not photograph.

I'm sorry that is not artistic that's CHEATING.

 

[Carl1770]

I still have many clients who pay good money for good photography. They know that in a veritable sea of mediocrity, good work makes them stand out. I just wanted to encourage the enthusiasts here to learn more about the market that they may be impacting with their business decisions.

There will always be people in any industry who see the dollar signs and miss the point. At the end of the day, the drone is just another tool in a photographers kit bag.
A carpenter wouldn't be much of a tradesman if the only tool he was proficient with was his hammer. As any pro photographer knows, it takes thousands of hours, a massive range of knowledge across many subjects and often several bags full of equipment to be able to ply his trade. Only then will he get results that people will pay for. Being concerned about the "undercutters" and newbies is and always has been a waste of energy. Do what you have always done, produce your work, charge fairly and they will come.

 

[Al Andison]

I agree 100% with the residential real estate market. There was NEVER anything there for me and others like me. Never.

There will always be those that try the DIY route. And they rarely get the results from their marketing that they hope for. For more investigative or documentary assignments then just buy a camera and learn how to use it. But if you are looking for something that stands out among the crowd, that will be an exercise in futility at best and potentially resulting in photos that do more harm than good.

Here is my web site - www.jimroofcreative.net

Anyone who really wants to can do what I do. That's the way I feel. But it amazes me at how few seem to motivated to make that happen.

Jim:

Totally agree. I checked out your site and completely appreciate the quality and professionalism behind what you do. Quality and experience will always deserve and get a premium. I think the best set a standard and build a market that is sometimes filled with those that produce for a portion of the market that accepts "good enough". That is the nature of markets. That's why many appreciate people appreciate and recognize and accept premium suppliers at premium prices. Here's hoping that there's room for both: the DIY and the premium.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

That's a bunch of rubbish lol.

If I take a photo of a lighthouse with a plain blue sky and add dramatic clouds I have changed what I have captured. If all I have to do is go to the beach at night and take a shot of the horizon and add a blazing sunset then I have not taken that picture that I present. If I go and take a photo of the moon and I don't like its size then I try again. Adding a moon from "stock" is just lazy! LOL

It's one thing to touch up a photo with lightroom, exposure, shadows and saturation, it's another to completely add things that you did not photograph.

I'm sorry that is not artistic that's CHEATING.

For survey mapping or news reporting I agree with you. For photography as a form of art, I must agree to disagree. Painters, sculptures, and all art forms allow for freedom of expression. Often the original photograph is only a start portraying the feeling or the look a photographer wants to convey. I was recently in a photo club in the New York City area that tended to agree with you. Most clubs I've observed have a mix of opinions. All are totally entitled to their own opinion and perspective. I respect that you disagree. That's OK!

 

[DougAles]

This is the most enjoyable thread I have read in a long time.

Lots of points of view, no fist pounding.

Well done.

....please carry on...

 

[ribjig]

Is it the camera or the photographer who creates the high value associated with an image?View attachment 79582

IME:
stock photography = the subject; (editorial lower res OK, commercial usually higher res)
fine art photography = photographer's perceived value
(two photographers theoretically could have nearly exact same aerial hanging in art gallery opening night, one gets offered $100 for big print, other gets bidding war same size print reaching $100K)
assignment photography = photographer's required skills + reliability + required equipment

 

[blackcrusader]

The best camera you have is the one with you. I take videos and photos for pleasure and not to sell them. Although some of my photos and video's people have asked can they buy them. One day I may put some up for sale. Not because I need the income just because some people like my photos. I am just a regular chap snapping some photos.

If I want professional work done I have a good friend who is a professional photographer with an amazing array of gear. I pay his professional fees and do not try to dime him. He gives me some tips on composition and other things so I can take some better photos. The thing with the drone is it allows me to take photos and video's others cannot.

Also I think the best photos are the ones that do not need to be edited. I have seen some that are so clearly edited they look like not to be real. Maybe I'm also just lazy From my P3S at 10350 altitude. The peaks to the right are over 13000 ft altitude.

 

[ribjig]

> I say that inanimate objects do not have rights.

Any "object" that can be copyrighted or trademarked
has legal protection, copying it aka photo in which it is
the only element = infringement = illegal = lawsuit...
There's also invasion of privacy = the act of photographing
any "object" for which there is an expectation of privacy, e.g.,
aiming your zoom lens at someone holding their prescription
bottle with label inadvertently showing...
(doesn't require publishing photo, just taking such a photo
= reason to be arrested immediately)
More obvious example = photos in public rest room;
Hence, aerially photographing a specific private back yard
can get one arrested just for act of taking such a photo...
Whereas, IMO, photographing a cluster of many backyards
in which no single backyard is primarily featured, is NOT
invasion of privacy...?

 

[jason]

I am a professional photographer with 35 years of experience shooting nothing but architecture.

Bought a Phantom 4 Pro+ 2 weeks ago and passed my 107 exam on 3/28 with a 97%. BTW, one of the missed questions was really an 'opinion' question...

Enough about me. What I really want to bring up is the value of photography. I just read a thread where some were feeling pretty good about getting paid less than 20 bucks to drive to a house and take some photos of it for, presumably, real estate purposes. While I cannot tell anyone what to do with their time, or encourage them to think of the RISKS they take on when they choose to take on such low paying work - I CAN tell people about the value of good photography in hopes that the prevalence of aerial photo platforms does not devalue the market too terribly.

I hired out for a guy to shoot some stills and video of a high end roof installation about 4 years ago. I shot everything from the ground and the other guy did the work from the air with a quadcopter. He charged me 1200.00 for the hour and I marked that up to 1500.00 and added it to my fees. My client paid about 3000.00 for the photography and, here is where most people have NO clue... the RIGHTS to use them.

Photography is not a parts and labor kind of business. It is, in every practical and LEGAL respect, a form of creative intellectual property. Even when you semi-mindlessly fly over a house or a nice landscape and accidentally depress the shutter button, you have created something which is uniquely yours. And, there MAY be significant value in what you have.

After I had taken my 107 Knowledge Exam, the administrator congratulated me on my 97%. I told him that I had something of an advantage because for more than 25 years I regularly shot from a helicopter and had racked up probably over 1000 hours of flight time, during which I asked questions about air space, radio protocols, and VFR rules regarding weather. In those 1000+ hours I would often shoot things that I just happened to 'see' as we passed something interesting on the ground. Once we flew over a small pond that was completely covered in pond scum and algae. I took that image and uploaded it to a stock photo site. That image alone has sold multiple times with one of those being for 900.00 to Herman Miller Corporation. As an aside, I would often fly with both a flight instructor AND a student pilot, always an advanced flyer. Twice, that student was Sonny Perdue, now the Secretary of Agriculture for the U.S. He was governor of GA at the time and it felt really odd as a barked my orders at him for where to turn and when and how much.

I digress.

Is everything I point my camera at going to be worth, or going to generate a 900.00 bill? No. But, I guarantee you that if I make a habit of valuing my work for 19.00 for a SET of images, it will NEVER happen.

In the mid 2000's, the 'penny stock' (not stock market... stock photos) concept did immeasurable harm as everyone with a digital camera suddenly became a photographer and thought getting 5 dollars for a photograph was a great deal for them. No. It was a great deal for the businesses that now had nearly free photography 'on tap'. At least at that point in time aerial photography still required a significant investment in a helicopter or plane charter so my aerial photos still sold pretty well, and sometimes still do.

Please do some research and consider the value of your photography, if that is what you are mostly doing with your flying. And don't be happy with having earned enough money in 12 hours of your time to be able to get a spare battery for your P4 Pro.

I know I have sounded like I am just tooting my own horn, and for a first post that is probably pretty bad form. But let me put the icing on the cake. I spent 8 days photographing a large industrial facility during the summer of 2016. After I photographed this project I had about 180 photographs that, in addition to the owner of the facility that contracted me, had a solid half dozen other firms that were interested in LICENSING the images from me. If I had asked 10 dollars per image for each of the other interested parties I could have made an extra 2,150.00 based up the number of images I licensed. That would have been enough to buy a Phantom 4 Pro+ and the DJI care package. WOW!

Instead, I asked what I KNEW the images were worth and ended up with sales adequate to buy more than 20 Phantom 4 Pros. And that included a lot of 'quantity' discounting.

Not bragging. Just illustrating a point from a real world experience.

If you get good photographs you should be able to get GOOD money for them. But you most certainly will NOT if you do not ask for it. What might just be serendipitous spending money to you - could have cost a professional photographer his next mortgage payment.

A very enjoyable read.

It's not the equipment that makes a photo stand out but the person behind it who knows how to use it.

 

[Stew-2]

That's a bunch of rubbish lol.

If I take a photo of a lighthouse with a plain blue sky and add dramatic clouds I have changed what I have captured. If all I have to do is go to the beach at night and take a shot of the horizon and add a blazing sunset then I have not taken that picture that I present. If I go and take a photo of the moon and I don't like its size then I try again. Adding a moon from "stock" is just lazy! LOL

It's one thing to touch up a photo with lightroom, exposure, shadows and saturation, it's another to completely add things that you did not photograph.

I'm sorry that is not artistic that's CHEATING.

Also I think the best photos are the ones that do not need to be edited. I have seen some that are so clearly edited they look like not to be real. Maybe I'm also just lazy

I'm sure I'm in the small minority here but these posts resonated with me. I for the most part don't like manipulated images, especially HDR type images. Images like those are not what I see when I view the world with my eyes and they just look really fake to me. Now I'm OK with some basic adjustments such as minor brightness adjustments for example, but much more than that and the images look cartoonish in my very humble opinion.

Then again, I almost never fly for the photographs and video, I've always been into radio control and fly for the fun of flying.

 

[jason]

I'm sure I'm in the small minority here but these posts resonated with me. I for the most part don't like manipulated images, especially HDR type images. Images like those are not what I see when I view the world with my eyes and they just look really fake to me. Now I'm OK with some basic adjustments such as minor brightness adjustments for example, but much more than that and the images look cartoonish in my very humble opinion.

Then again, I almost never fly for the photographs and video, I've always been into radio control and fly for the fun of flying.

Then i guess you wouldn't like this long exposure either.

 

[Meta4]

I think the best photos are the ones that do not need to be edited. I have seen some that are so clearly edited they look like not to be real.

That's a nice simplistic view but life isn't so black and white.
The best photos are the best photos - and a lot of them have been edited.

I have seen some that are so clearly edited they look like not to be real.

And what about the ones that did not look unreal, the ones you didn't even know were edited in some way?
Really you are just saying that you don't like a certain kind of editing (overcooked photos).

There's nothing special or magic or pure about an untouched original just as it came from the camera.
Even that has been edited before you even see it.
There are a thousand ways to edit a photo ... and they aren't all bad.

 

[skellyrocker]

I'm sure I'm in the small minority here but these posts resonated with me. I for the most part don't like manipulated images, especially HDR type images. Images like those are not what I see when I view the world with my eyes and they just look really fake to me. Now I'm OK with some basic adjustments such as minor brightness adjustments for example, but much more than that and the images look cartoonish in my very humble opinion.

Then again, I almost never fly for the photographs and video, I've always been into radio control and fly for the fun of flying.

There is certainly a fad at the moment for stretching saturation of colours to the point of absurdity. I tried it and posted the results (which were rubbish) on Instagram. My followers doubled (from 2 to 4) so that was nice (thanks Mum). Anyway, I am in the camp of a little cropping, exposure adjustment is fine (a la Lightroom) but turning all the dials to 11 to hide the fact that a shot wasn't that great is cheating a bit.

 

[blackcrusader]

This wasn't edited. The colours are natural. I had someone offer to edit it for me. Why? Clouds not good enough? hehehehe

Yes editing can touch up things very nicely, like all those models in magazines who do not look anything like their edited photo's.