My experience with a "fauxtographer."

[speedy2]

Not a lot of consumers know where to get high quality prints done. They don't care. They don't want to. They are paying for the photographers time and knowledge to get them high quality prints. When someone gets paid, it's not just for 1 or 2 things.

I get the same thing here at work with my dad. They want to dispute a ring sizing or watch repair. "All you did was stretch it to a bigger size," they say. No, we cut, reshaped, added gold(cost of gold, soldering, time, etc), then several steps of polishing/shaping. Checking/tightening stones. Then final polish/buff/clean. They think they are only paying for an extra bit of gold and nothing else happens. I will gladly sell them a piece of gold and hand their ring back to them and let them give it a try for just the price of the gold piece.

 

[Midwayman]

I wouldn't want to hand out RAW files for a couple reasons
1) Very few people know what to do with them and chances are I'll get calls for support.
2) Raw files have no PP applied and I want to make sure people see my finished product, not some intermediate step. Its easy for a customer to PP a raw into a jpeg to share with a friend very poorly and pass it off as your work.

I think I'd only every consider it for people I knew who were photographers, or a least artists and understood about the importance of not letting crap with your name attached to it get out there.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Yeah there is profit in it if you want to fleece your customer. I realize it's all anecdotal but my 3 professional photographer friends don't do that. I have tried to get them to charge a bit more for their trouble but they state it's not their business. They make money on the photography and the processing and then have the images shipped out for professional printing.

Either way buying the CD is generally the wrong move unless you actually understand the relationship between the image and the printer and then spend money on quality paper and printing.

If you're just taking snapshots then by all means print them at walmart or better yet just print them at home.

I remember reading advice a long time ago on becoming a professional photographer. First, don't - shoot what you want to shooot (which I took), and second, take two business classes for every photo class you take.

Point being, charging what the market will bear (maximizing profit) is an ethical business decision. I would not call it fleecing.

JR

 

[AkumaX]

this thread blew up fast!! haha!

Not a lot of consumers know where to get high quality prints done. They don't care. They don't want to. They are paying for the photographers time and knowledge to get them high quality prints. When someone gets paid, it's not just for 1 or 2 things.

I get the same thing here at work with my dad. They want to dispute a ring sizing or watch repair. "All you did was stretch it to a bigger size," they say. No, we cut, reshaped, added gold(cost of gold, soldering, time, etc), then several steps of polishing/shaping. Checking/tightening stones. Then final polish/buff/clean. They think they are only paying for an extra bit of gold and nothing else happens. I will gladly sell them a piece of gold and hand their ring back to them and let them give it a try for just the price of the gold piece.

tell me more about how to print out quality prints?

 

[randomrogue]

I remember reading advice a long time ago on becoming a professional photographer. First, don't - shoot what you want to shooot (which I took), and second, take two business classes for every photo class you take.

Point being, charging what the market will bear (maximizing profit) is an ethical business decision. I would not call it fleecing.

JR

I do agree with that. I think what I'm really trying to say though is charge but don't charge so much so that customers would rather print them at walmart which compromises the quality of the entire package.

 

[xj0hnx]

Her processing is terrible. My wifes teeth are glowing. ANd yeah, those are bad as well. She shoots with the lens wide open in every shot, and then tries to sharpen them later to make up for the thin DOF.

This +1. It's not so much that the pictures themselves are so bad, other than missing focus points on a couple, it's her post processing that is absolute shit.

 

[Throckmorton]

The pictures themselves ARE bad. They mostly look really awkward. Since when are you supposed to capture children looking scared?

 

[xj0hnx]

The pictures themselves ARE bad. They mostly look really awkward. Since when are you supposed to capture children looking scared?

Yea, they look terrified

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/21-c.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/7-c.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/5-c.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/16-c.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/17-c.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/8-c.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/3-c.jpg
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/18-c.jpg

Did you actually look at the pictures?

 

[Kanalua]

$150 is not that expensive a lesson.

 

[dougp]

$150 is not that expensive a lesson.

It is for those pictures - my friend is running a $150 special for Valentine's Day and she's a much better photographer. Go to http://kimhartz.com/ and click on Portfolio and hit up her Portraits. Heck, I believe her regular session is $250 but she might have raised her prices.

 

[fralexandr]

It is for those pictures - my friend is running a $150 special for Valentine's Day and she's a much better photographer. Go to http://kimhartz.com/ and click on Portfolio and hit up her Portraits. Heck, I believe her regular session is $250 but she might have raised her prices.

I like the pictures, but as you stated, she usually costs more than the OP paid. What if the person can't afford $250 and can't wait for Valentine's Day? Even so, IMO paying more for in focus shots that aren't overprocessed is still worth it.

I do like the bokeh effect in some of the OPs outdoor photos as a result of low depth of field, but that probably caused some of the OOF shots to be more apparent

edit: it's really $175 for an on site photoshoot
I wonder if prices tend to vary greatly based on location, since she's based in Texas maybe some photographers elsewhere have to charge more due to costs of living?

off-topic: I don't like her website's portfolio UI though, I understand that most people like spiffy animations and stuff, but it hinders usability as it's slow (added ~0.5-1s delay per photo) to scroll through the images.

 

[dougp]

I like the pictures, but as you stated, she usually costs more than the OP paid. What if the person can't afford $250 and can't wait for Valentine's Day? Even so, IMO paying more for in focus shots that aren't overprocessed is still worth it.

edit: it's really $175 for an on site photoshoot
I wonder if prices tend to vary greatly based on location, since she's based in Texas.

I don't like her website's portfolio UI though, I understand that most people like spiffy animations and stuff, but it hinders usability as it's slow to scroll through the images.

I helped her configure most of that site, and get it setup. It's a lot better than it was previously, which was the portfolio UI for EVERYTHING and her blog was set as a specific site. As far as I know, she doesn't do much portrait except during the holidays and senior portraits - she primarily focuses on dog's and newborns, and the dog photography is where she makes a lot of money. She has some pretty high profile clients and routinely shoots for some magazines based out of Houston.

 

[Paladin3]

edit: it's really $175 for an on site photo shoot. I wonder if prices tend to vary greatly based on location, since she's based in Texas maybe some photographers elsewhere have to charge more due to costs of living?

I find the photographers who charge more are the ones who depend on the trade for a living. They don't live with their parents or have a well employed spouse subsidizing their existence.

There is a cost of doing business calculator on the NPPA website. It's amazing how little a $175 fee really is once you calculate the actual costs of doing business. If you figure 2/3 of your time will be marketing and production work, with only 1/3 of your time actually shooting, then it gets almost depressing.

The OP's "fauxtographer" didn't pay for her gear or the Land Rover she drove up in by charging $150 for a shoot and images on a disk, unless she is doing 4-5 of those every other day.

 

[angry hampster]

I find the photographers who charge more are the ones who depend on the trade for a living. They don't live with their parents or have a well employed spouse subsidizing their existence.

This is pretty much it. I am confident to say that I'm a reasonably good wedding photographer...However, I work a full-time job managing a sales team in a call center as it takes forever to build a steady income stream from weddings & portraits. Right now, my prices are pretty much middle-ground (or perhaps low) for the area. Even if I doubled my rates, I would still need to book ~30 weddings/year to make a reasonable living in my area on photography alone. Fairly difficult when "wedding season" is roughly 20 weeks long.

Some samples of my work for the non-believers:

Nonetheless, keeping it a part-time job makes it all the more enjoyable. I have a TON of fun at every wedding that I shoot, and I don't think that zeal and enjoyment would still be there if it were a full-time gig.

 

[speedy2]

Steve, your pics are great. And compared to around here, they blow away a lot of the work you can find here. Sadly, the economy here is crap. Working with my dad in the jewelry business isn't any easier of course. I'm trying to break into photography here, but it's gonna take time as well. And, at a couple hundred a shoot, I don't have time for people to whine and complain about prices.

For 1, where are they going to go? Unless they are in love with this womans work....barf.

2, $200 or so for an hour or 2. Nice images. My wife and I taking our time to make sure everything is right. Location of your choice. And.....if you don't like it...you don't buy it. I hope it works out. But, so far, people expect the moon for pennies here, it's very annoying. That said, I didn't expect her to give me super pro results, but come on, OOF shots is just unacceptable even if I paid her half of what I paid.

 

[finbarqs]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices

saw this on our famous dpreview.com

Wedding photographer discusses WHY we charge ~$3k per wedding. Angry Hampster basically just summarized everything! They need the money to survive on, and with the amount of hours spent, and the amount it costs to keep the business going is an arm and a leg.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices

saw this on our famous dpreview.com

Wedding photographer discusses WHY we charge ~$3k per wedding. Angry Hampster basically just summarized everything! They need the money to survive on, and with the amount of hours spent, and the amount it costs to keep the business going is an arm and a leg.

The Puget Sound Bride has a problem with someone taking $3000 for a day’s shoot "because you CAN!?!” I'd take $3000 for a cup of lemonade if I could. Successful businesses charge as much as the market will bear.

Now, Nikki Wagner is doing a big of whining herself. She seems to want pity because she has to "...take on many family portraits, senior portraits and corporate jobs in order to make ends meet." Good Grief!

Puget Bride should know that an independent businessman will charge as much as he can. It's the right thing to do. Sometimes a customer just can’t afford a really great craftsman. Puget needs to be a bit more imaginative in her search for a photographer.

Nikki Wagner should know that she is really in the business of making money, not photos. Very few people can prosper only doing the part of a business they really like. You have to make money where you can. When you can practice your art AND make a living it's wonderful, but it isn't going to happen all the time. There’s nothing wrong with photographing widgets in a factory – if it pays.

JR

 

[Zargon]

That last line is puzzling... why wouldn't you? A photographer isn't just about taking the picture. It's also about the print. I don't want someone taking a digital copy of one of my shots to Walmart and getting it print there. I trust the print companies I use for their quality and color correctness.

But you're assuming that someone just has them printed at Walmart or another place like this - outside of a more exclusive local printer, everyone has equal access to great print labs like Adorama, Mpx, SmugMug, etc.

dougp covered it. that and in 6 years if someone ruins a picture and I want a copy, what if you moved? Then I am screwed.

this reminds me that I need to get crashplan or mozy setup.....so all my copies arent in my house


I will also pay more for the photog who gives digital copys. As I see a long term cost savings in it.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices

saw this on our famous dpreview.com

Wedding photographer discusses WHY we charge ~$3k per wedding. Angry Hampster basically just summarized everything! They need the money to survive on, and with the amount of hours spent, and the amount it costs to keep the business going is an arm and a leg.

Then I have my car, which I would use to get me to and from your wedding, which I pay $400/month for the lease, plus $200/month in car insurance. $27,800 – $7,200 = $20,600

yikes her insurance is insanely expensive. and lease? bad accounting skillz.

 

[sygyzy]

I understand, from a math perspective, why a person who makes their living exclusively off photography would want to charge three grand a pop but it's not a very logical way to price things and doesn't justify it either. What surprises me is that the market hasn't adjusted.

I live close to a fairly prominent photography school and practically every other girl or guy in their early 20's here is a "professional" photographer. What this really means is they have a 7D and some prime lenses. I think that with the advent of affordable SLR's and good lighting, most people can take good shots. How often do you see a pretty amazing shot even with people's iPhone 4's?

If there are so few jobs that get booked a year and a number of photographers available, all desperate to make money, why wouldn't one of them just offer to do it for $500 less and get the job? And if it has to do with quality, then the person who is the "best" will have no problem charging what they want.

 

[dougp]

I understand, from a math perspective, why a person who makes their living exclusively off photography would want to charge three grand a pop but it's not a very logical way to price things and doesn't justify it either. What surprises me is that the market hasn't adjusted.

I live close to a fairly prominent photography school and practically every other girl or guy in their early 20's here is a "professional" photographer. What this really means is they have a 7D and some prime lenses. I think that with the advent of affordable SLR's and good lighting, most people can take good shots. How often do you see a pretty amazing shot even with people's iPhone 4's?

If there are so few jobs that get booked a year and a number of photographers available, all desperate to make money, why wouldn't one of them just offer to do it for $500 less and get the job? And if it has to do with quality, then the person who is the "best" will have no problem charging what they want.

They don't. Wife's cousin just paid $6k to get photo/video at his wedding and there were 8 or 9 people standing around doing it all. Hell, they had a guy just standing there as a flash stand.

 

[CuriousMike]

They don't. Wife's cousin just paid $6k to get photo/video at his wedding and there were 8 or 9 people standing around doing it all. Hell, they had a guy just standing there as a flash stand.

For a twice in a lifetime experience, you don't want the photos effed up.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

By Seth Godin:
The pricing formula (S&S)

Years ago, my bosses and I needed to finalize the pricing for a new line of software I was launching. In the room we had MBAs from Harvard (2), Stanford, Tuck and, I think, Wharton. We had three prices in mind, and the five of us couldn't agree. So we did the only scientific thing: we flipped a coin (two out of three, just to be sure).

Pricing your product is actually simple, as long as you consider it from the buyer's point of view. How much it costs you to make something is irrelevant. They don't care (of course, you can't price something at a loss and hope to stay in business for long). The two keys to the analysis:

Substitutes: Every purchase is a choice, and that means the buyer can choose to do nothing or buy something else instead. If there are easy and obvious substitutes to what you sell, that has to be built into your pricing. If you make something rare and unique, you still might not be able to charge a lot--because people can always choose to buy nothing. A 42 carat diamond, for example, might be hard to replace, but it's not worth $100 million unless someone actually chooses to buy it. Part of the work of design and marketing is to help people understand that there are no good substitutes for what you have to offer, meaning, of course, that you can happily charge more.

Story: The other half of the pricing formula is the story the price itself tells. A Prius at $40,000 or a Prius at $10,000 is the same car, but the price becomes a dominant part of the story. You can tell a story of value/cheapness/affordability, or a story of luxury. If you price your product or service near the median, you're telling no story at all with the price, giving you the chance to tell a story about some other element of what you sell.

If you're not happy with your pricing options, focusing on your costs might not be the right path. Instead, focus on how the design or delivery change the availability of substitutes, and how the price becomes part of the story of your product.

 

[xchangx]

Thanks Johnny! What an awesome write up.

By Seth Godin:
The pricing formula (S&S)

Years ago, my bosses and I needed to finalize the pricing for a new line of software I was launching. In the room we had MBAs from Harvard (2), Stanford, Tuck and, I think, Wharton. We had three prices in mind, and the five of us couldn't agree. So we did the only scientific thing: we flipped a coin (two out of three, just to be sure).

Pricing your product is actually simple, as long as you consider it from the buyer's point of view. How much it costs you to make something is irrelevant. They don't care (of course, you can't price something at a loss and hope to stay in business for long). The two keys to the analysis:

Substitutes: Every purchase is a choice, and that means the buyer can choose to do nothing or buy something else instead. If there are easy and obvious substitutes to what you sell, that has to be built into your pricing. If you make something rare and unique, you still might not be able to charge a lot--because people can always choose to buy nothing. A 42 carat diamond, for example, might be hard to replace, but it's not worth $100 million unless someone actually chooses to buy it. Part of the work of design and marketing is to help people understand that there are no good substitutes for what you have to offer, meaning, of course, that you can happily charge more.

Story: The other half of the pricing formula is the story the price itself tells. A Prius at $40,000 or a Prius at $10,000 is the same car, but the price becomes a dominant part of the story. You can tell a story of value/cheapness/affordability, or a story of luxury. If you price your product or service near the median, you're telling no story at all with the price, giving you the chance to tell a story about some other element of what you sell.

If you're not happy with your pricing options, focusing on your costs might not be the right path. Instead, focus on how the design or delivery change the availability of substitutes, and how the price becomes part of the story of your product.

 

[blinblue]

The worst thing about those photos is they really turned the post processing to 11. Far too much saturation, it makes my eyes bleed. But that said, the photos aren't terribad. If she just turned that dial to a 4 or a 5 instead of 11 they'd be much more pleasing to the eye.

Now my other pet peeve. Photographers that give out the digital copies. Now I'm cool with not giving out the RAW, seeing as most people wouldn't even know what to do with it, and some processing is sometimes required. But when I had to pick my wedding photographer one of the MUST have requirements is that I get full resolution, unmarked jpegs. Because guess what, that's how I show people my photos (on facebook, on my computer, etc). Professional photographers that refuse to do so will never get my money, and I don't doubt that many people out there have the same feelings as me in this regard.

In my mind, I'm paying someone to take photos. If I don't have those photos in my possession, then I didn't get what I paid for. I am paying for someone's time and talent and jpegs on a DVD none of this $50 for a 4x6 BS


(That said, I have no problem with guests who wants prints going to the photographer and paying ridiculous prices)