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

[elsenor]

Jim, I went to your website. You have little to worry about. If someone wants a Lamborghini they're not going to be happy with a VW beetle. If they want a car, they'll take either. You, sir, sell Lamborghinis.

I agree with your point in there being a difference in Jim vs < insert random someone > but to some, they can't tell the difference. Or don't understand the difference. I'm still not entirely sure as someone who faces this often. But it's a problem and a slight variation of Jim's initial post.

Allow me to use an example. I find this in track and field (maybe other sports?) photography. Consumers/viewers appear incapable of telling the difference between a stellar/pro photographer and a random person. They appear to see: the sport they love, an athlete they like, at a popular meet/event, and sometimes in motion. There have been a number of people who have all of the sudden gotten into photography, bought a crop sensor camera with a kit lens, then immediately changed all their social channel descriptions to "pro photographer." Except the photos are OFTEN out of focus, in terrible lighting, and poorly composed ; they are merely present at the meet and pressing the shutter button. Sure, who cares right?! Let them have fun and learn!

Well, they are (somehow) excelling in gaining a following, and have worked their way into higher circles to take photos for companies or events. Which, like Jim's original post, dilutes the quality and professional photos that someone who really knew what they were doing could provide, not to mention possibly altering what is acceptable pay for professional photo services and usage.

 

[ribjig]

Those are not clouds ... that's the mud washing up from the bottom...

Ha! It might not be either.
I see reflected arm wearing wristwatch, so whiteness
could be someone's reflected tee-shirt???!!

 

[ribjig]

A photograph of an object is NOT a copy of that object... unless the photograph is of another photograph OR a piece of flat art....
We have privacy rights where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Photographers telling photographers what against law & what's not
is very bad idea, IMO, unless they are quoting authoritative sources.
Am guessing you read photoattorney.com blog or similar & report it
as court-proven fact? If I'm understanding your combined advice,
I can take photos of every page of best selling books & sell mine as
photo-book without needing clearance as books are 3D objects????
Person in their own backyard has expectation of privacy, especially
if surrounded by bushes, fence, ergo aerial of just that backyard
with person very likely invades privacy. Paparazzo very aggressive
in testing privacy limits, have been successfully sued for aerials of
celebrity weddings, etc. I should think people-less images of
celebrity backyard objects angled aerials (drone over public street)
would sell regularly but show me any?!!!! Also show me super
zoomed images from public places looking into empty bedroom
windows of celebrities????! (you define both as legal)
Flat art vs 3D art meaningless, AFAIK; what matters is whether
or not photographer has added enough new elements, new lighting...

 

[Helihover]

Some of you sound scared.....

Hey,....... Somebody's gotta dig the ditch.

 

[Jim Roof]

Photographers telling photographers what against law & what's not
is very bad idea, IMO, unless they are quoting authoritative sources.
Am guessing you read photoattorney.com blog or similar & report it
as court-proven fact? If I'm understanding your combined advice,
I can take photos of every page of best selling books & sell mine as
photo-book without needing clearance as books are 3D objects????
Person in their own backyard has expectation of privacy, especially
if surrounded by bushes, fence, ergo aerial of just that backyard
with person very likely invades privacy. Paparazzo very aggressive
in testing privacy limits, have been successfully sued for aerials of
celebrity weddings, etc. I should think people-less images of
celebrity backyard objects angled aerials (drone over public street)
would sell regularly but show me any?!!!! Also show me super
zoomed images from public places looking into empty bedroom
windows of celebrities????! (you define both as legal)
Flat art vs 3D art meaningless, AFAIK; what matters is whether
or not photographer has added enough new elements, new lighting...

'If I'm understanding your combined advice,
I can take photos of every page of best selling books & sell mine as
photo-book without needing clearance as books are 3D objects????'

You are not understanding my 'combined advice'. Your example is silly, to boot.

My advice was offered as it relates to buildings and I clearly stated that one cannot make a COPY of anything with a photograph EXCEPT for something that is already flat. A photo of a photo IS a copy. A photo of a Warhol painting IS a copy. A photo of the Sistine Chapel is NOT a copy.

'Am guessing you read photoattorney.com blog or similar & report it
as court-proven fact?'

Actually, I consulted that very same attorney personally. Sculptures may present a problem too if the artist is in a litigious mood.

'I should think people-less images of
celebrity backyard objects angled aerials (drone over public street)
would sell regularly but show me any?!!!! Also show me super
zoomed images from public places looking into empty bedroom
windows of celebrities????! (you define both as legal)'

OK... I am editing my post...

It appears that you are referring to a shot looking into an EMPTY bedroom space through a window. You know, it may or may not be illegal, but it IS creepy. It certainly is inviting trouble because people might have their bedrooms reveal something about THEM, the PERSON, that IS legally protected. But, once again, I do not remember stating anywhere anything about peering INTO someone's house. However, if I photographed a house from the street, and once could see into the bedroom (maybe they had a few 5K HMI's in there so I could actually SEE something) and that photo showed something they would rather keep quiet... Maybe they should do a better job and get thicker curtains. But that was never my point to begin with... was it? As far as a BUILDING GOES, ANY piece of architecture can be photographed from a public area and the photographer has broken no laws. Just because something does NOT exist (magazines featuring photos looking into empty rooms and empty backyards of famous people) does not mean the reason it does not exist is because it is illegal.

I cannot find any books of photographs taken of luna moth caterpillars crawling on the back of a hairless cat. Cannot find a book of photos showing ice sculptures of King Tut either. Should I draw the conclusion that both of these things could only come to exist through the breaking of laws and that the fact that they do not exist is evidence that there must be some law prohibiting them?

And....

I stand by my statement. COPYRIGHT is designed to protect the owner of intellectual property from having their intellectual property COPIED. Let me say this one more time - a photo of an office building is NOT a copy of the building. The law IS on my side here. It is explicitly stated in the copyright revisions that extended protection to architects in 1992 (I think that was the year).

The REAL issues with photography and rights involves issues of privacy and also publicity rights. Privacy DOES exist where one would have a reasonable expectation of it. A bedroom is not just a REASONABLE expectation, it is as ironclad an expectation as one is to ever encounter.

Please, before you try to belittle me, read and comprehend what I have written.

 

[jason]

This is a true story...

In 2002 I was contracted to photograph an office building near a cluster of government buildings in DeKalb County, GA. The building I was shooting was the Juvenile Justice Building. I was not shooting digital at the time, so I got out my 20 pound tripod and assembled a Sinar F2 4x5 camera, attached my Schneider 75mm Super Angulon, composed the shot, then a cloud covered the sun.

I sat in the parking lot of that building on that Sunday afternoon for at least 90 minutes waiting for the light to return. As I waited, a police car came zooming into the lot and the office started to pepper me with question after question. He told me "You might be gathering information for a terrorist attack".

Biting just a small part of my tongue, I offered "You know, if I was a terrorist trying to get information about this building I would not be doing it on a day when I am the only human with 100 yards of the building. I also would not be using 35 pounds of camera and tripod. And, I would not have waited an hour and a half for the light to be right for the shot."

Just how long a hike have people's critical thinking skills taken?

Police do seem to get carried away after 9/11.

 

[DougAles]

....

Maybe professional photographers should try taking photos that are less in focus with worse lighting and poorer compossesion.

Check this out from 1:00 to 1:49

 

[jephoto]

F4 to 4.5 is optimal
I don't shoot above F5.
F8 it gets bad. Below F4, corners lose sharpness
My tests

For most lenses- slr, view camera, drone, all the same in regards to optics.
2-3 stops down from wide open is optimum. Basically the optical center of the coverage of that lens. Each lens a bit different. This is not expensive glass. Diffraction & chromatic aberration becomes noticeable quickly.
The P4P is f2.8 to f11. Therefore approx f5.6 is that center.
It's just physics....
Doesn't mean you can't shoot any other f-stop. But if you are trying to wring out every drop of quality from your drone camera, shoot Raw, try to keep f stop near 5.6, 100 iso, give your image every advantage you can.
I shoot architecture and interiors with a Nikon 14-24 lens. Wonderful piece of glass.
Whenever possible I shot at f8.0.
Doesn't mean I don't ever shoot at f2.8 or f16 if I really need that depth of field. But only if I absolutely have to. Wide angle lenses naturally have tremendous depth of field.

 

[DougAles]

With irony to this thread, the USA Today has an article about how even at the presidential level, professional photographers with their staged poses, bokeh blur and over the top post-editing are out and amature smartphones photographers are in.

 

[johngussman]

I always like to say the difference between a pro photographer and an amateur is that an amateur photographer can TAKE good photos once in a while, but a pro photographer can MAKE good photos everyday. Clients hire pros for many reasons, but one of them is consistency.

 

[jason]

With irony to this thread, the USA Today has an article about how even at the presidential level, professional photographers with their staged poses, bokeh blur and over the top post-editing are out and amature smartphones photographers are in.

To bad there isn't a dislike button.

 

[DougAles]

To bad there isn't a dislike button.

Jason - I am confused.

Are you upset at the content in the article from the USA Today that I did not write or me for sharing information relevant to this thread?

Note: if the later, then I also wish their was a dislike button.

 

[Mr Pool]

As a photographer. you are spot on, not every minute of our working day, nor indeed the many hours of planning and preparation are covered by our fees.

This is why our royalty and fee system exists.

I salute you my brother and support your position entirely.

Remember one thing, readers of these posts...Time is money and a hobby creates enjoyment at your own cost, not at the cost of those trying to support their families and pay their mortgages.

Rant over.

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.

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.

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.

Man<,,,

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.

 

[AyeYo]

I think the Photoshop side discussion is an interesting one. I think once you begin ADDING to a photo, it's not photography anymore. It's certainly art, but it shouldn't be passed off as photography and the people trying to pass it off as photography are doing a disservice to real photographers. The internet is now flooded with manufactured "photographs" that setup the same unrealistic standards for photographers that airbrushed (and also Photoshopped) models setup for people trying to be fit. Taking a meh photo and cutting and pasting stock footage into it to make it look cool, then calling yourself a photographer is like taking a clay block, dropping a David replica on top of it and calling yourself a sculptor.

I agree with your point in there being a difference in Jim vs < insert random someone > but to some, they can't tell the difference. Or don't understand the difference. I'm still not entirely sure as someone who faces this often. But it's a problem and a slight variation of Jim's initial post.

Allow me to use an example. I find this in track and field (maybe other sports?) photography. Consumers/viewers appear incapable of telling the difference between a stellar/pro photographer and a random person. They appear to see: the sport they love, an athlete they like, at a popular meet/event, and sometimes in motion. There have been a number of people who have all of the sudden gotten into photography, bought a crop sensor camera with a kit lens, then immediately changed all their social channel descriptions to "pro photographer." Except the photos are OFTEN out of focus, in terrible lighting, and poorly composed ; they are merely present at the meet and pressing the shutter button. Sure, who cares right?! Let them have fun and learn!

Well, they are (somehow) excelling in gaining a following, and have worked their way into higher circles to take photos for companies or events. Which, like Jim's original post, dilutes the quality and professional photos that someone who really knew what they were doing could provide, not to mention possibly altering what is acceptable pay for professional photo services and usage.

This goes back to my prior statement about providing more than clients actually want and then demanding more than they'd really like to pay. Not just photography, but society in general has shifted mentality. If 7/10 quality is what the consumer wants, you can only get away with pushing 10/10 quality for exorbitant prices for so long. As soon as folks come along offering 7/10 quality for a fifth of the price, consumers will flock to them. All that matters is what the customer wants. You can't get away with telling people what they want and charging more for it unless you're Apple.

 

[Jim Roof]

I think the Photoshop side discussion is an interesting one. I think once you begin ADDING to a photo, it's not photography anymore. It's certainly art, but it shouldn't be passed off as photography and the people trying to pass it off as photography are doing a disservice to real photographers. The internet is now flooded with manufactured "photographs" that setup the same unrealistic standards for photographers that airbrushed (and also Photoshopped) models setup for people trying to be fit. Taking a meh photo and cutting and pasting stock footage into it to make it look cool, then calling yourself a photographer is like taking a clay block, dropping a David replica on top of it and calling yourself a sculptor.






This goes back to my prior statement about providing more than clients actually want and then demanding more than they'd really like to pay. Not just photography, but society in general has shifted mentality. If 7/10 quality is what the consumer wants, you can only get away with pushing 10/10 quality for exorbitant prices for so long. As soon as folks come along offering 7/10 quality for a fifth of the price, consumers will flock to them. All that matters is what the customer wants. You can't get away with telling people what they want and charging more for it unless you're Apple.

I have not found that to be true in the clientele that I circulate. Of course, I am not dealing with the general public at all. My clients are medium sized to large architectural firms who are designing projects ranging from a few million dollars to hundreds of millions. In once case, it was 1.2 billion.

People THINK they are saving money when they hire lesser talent to get their marketing photography, but for some reason, the ones who spend significant money on their photography tend to keep getting the higher paying projects while those that hire less capable shooters tend to NOT get what they are looking for. Gee... I wonder why?

Just got the word today that an image I took last November will be the cover shot in the next issue of Healthcare Design. My client is very happy that they spend decent money to send me to San Antonio to photograph the new Children's Hospital building.

35 years ago, when I first started my business, I asked a more seasoned professional businessman (not a photographer) to give me some advice. He asked me what my goal was. I said "To provide a good product at an affordable price". The first advice he gave me was "You want to command and GET a HIGH price". Photography fees have been flat for about 8 years now. Some have reduced their fees. I have kept mine in the upper 20-25% range.

When people ask me how they should price themselves as photographers, I usually tell them two things:

1. There are two ways for a photographer to go broke. They can fail by asking so much that nobody will use them or they can fail by asking so little that they get every assignment, but fail to make a profit.
2. There is, in every market, a sweet spot where you will make the most income. As a general rule, if you are IN that sweet spot, you will frequently hear the words "that's out of our price range". You should NOT feel bad when you hear that. As long as you are not getting that more than 50% of the time you are probably priced about right.

 

[John Decker]

I agree with your point in there being a difference in Jim vs < insert random someone > but to some, they can't tell the difference. Or don't understand the difference. I'm still not entirely sure as someone who faces this often. But it's a problem and a slight variation of Jim's initial post.

Allow me to use an example. I find this in track and field (maybe other sports?) photography. Consumers/viewers appear incapable of telling the difference between a stellar/pro photographer and a random person. They appear to see: the sport they love, an athlete they like, at a popular meet/event, and sometimes in motion. There have been a number of people who have all of the sudden gotten into photography, bought a crop sensor camera with a kit lens, then immediately changed all their social channel descriptions to "pro photographer." Except the photos are OFTEN out of focus, in terrible lighting, and poorly composed ; they are merely present at the meet and pressing the shutter button. Sure, who cares right?! Let them have fun and learn!

Well, they are (somehow) excelling in gaining a following, and have worked their way into higher circles to take photos for companies or events. Which, like Jim's original post, dilutes the quality and professional photos that someone who really knew what they were doing could provide, not to mention possibly altering what is acceptable pay for professional photo services and usage.

The waters start muddying on these points.. Remember the footage of Concorde in flames? Every news agency either showed it or wanted it, but you wouldn't watch a film with its production values. The point is that if you capture something that people want to see, they will forgive photographic errors. The track and field meet will also feature stories that will fade fast, and will command limited attention, but the OP's work is long term and he can take time over it. As he said himself, companies that employ lesser photographers don't do as well with their advertising. A visit to his website shows the sort of photos I wish I could take - you don't have to be Ansell Adams to tell a good photo from a lesser one, even if you saw the lesser one first and thought it was good enough.
Lesser photos will always sell, either because of price or news worthiness or simply because you don't need a top end photo, but I suspect the OP will be in business for a while yet.

 

[Don Holmes]

While I want to agree, I think the days of highly paid photography are over and drones have nothing to do with it. People simply lost the desire to pay for it. Why? Because in the digital age all I need is a decent cell phone and a couple youtube videos worth of Lightroom training or any of the plethora of filtering apps and I (or anyone) can turn out photography that will be impressive to 95% of the population and certainly be perfectly sufficient for any real estate usage.

Professional photographers wanted THOUSANDS of dollars to shoot my wedding. I found a local girl that had great scenery and portrait photos on Instagram and asked if she'd be willing to do it for $500. There's no reduction in quality that made me wish I paid 4-6x more.

When speaking about drone photography specifically, the market supply is beyond flooded. I'm getting under-bid on jobs by people bidding FREE "to build their portfolios". No one is printing money with their drone and making hundreds an hour on a shoot unless they're an established production company using heavy-lift drones for large, commercial clients with video editing work included. The sweet spot in my area seems to be $50 for basic residential stills, which takes me less than 15 minutes to complete - my drive time and travel expenses aren't the client's problem. Sites like Droners and Skypixel show upfront exactly what a client's total budget is and I can tell you right now it doesn't exceed $100/hr in most cases. The average real estate client is NOT a pixel peeper and no one but a pixel peeper is going to see the difference between a shot from a cell phone and a shot from a $1500 camera once they're both edited and uploaded to a 720p block on a real estate website.

All this is further complicated by how easy it is to actually fly a drone and how little commitment/expense it takes to get a Part 107 license. The price the market will bear is capped VERY low because for more than that very low amount, what would be repeat commercial clients will simply go get their own license and equipment and shoot their own jobs - and that's happening left and right already.

I've been flying for a year, I have 2 Phantom 3 Standards, 1 Cheerson CX-20 with GoPro, 1 Phantom 4. I have been working for Real Estate Companies for 35 years, providing every kind of service that they need. I bought my first drone, the Cheerson CX-20 to provide the service of photo inspections, and other photo services to Real Estate companies. Funny thing is, even with my contacts in the RE market, I had a hard time getting them to pay worthy money for the services. I actually have made more money in advising the Real Estate companies on which kind of drone to buy, and then training their maintenance men or agents on how to use the drone. I can charge $150. an hour to advise and train someone. I have never been a photographer of any skill, but I do know how to use the best editing software on the market....which forgives many sins.

 

[shanek]

This has been the most informative and inspiring thread I have read here. The best hour I have ever spent reading a thread from start to finish. Cudos to all who contributed.

As for me,Im just a phantom owner,now educated a bit more

 

[Nickster]

Jim, thanks for all of that info. That was very helpful.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

In my opinion, pricing photographs, like most other goods and services, is a function of supply and demand. It's not what equipment you use or how much time you put into planning, capturing, and post processing an image. It is more how many people know of you and can personally differentiate your work from others. I am now working with a portrait photographer, who I think has extraordinary talent. In his case, the main thing that can drive his success is marketing. I tell him that no matter how excellent his work is, "Invisibility Doesn't Sell". I did make a website for him (www.legacyportraitsbydon.com) and am working to build out many more marketing channels. Everyone who sees his work comments how his extraordinary talent shows immediately. BUT ... some will pay for it and others won't. So another feature of marketing is to define who your market is and get your visibility up among them.