$35/hour and supply your own gear? Really?

[norwest]

Just sensitive I guess.

Seriously norwest, the term "profession" is so hackneyed as to be truly cringe worthy in this day and age. The only people I see using it are #1 Hard core filkr posters. #2 Hard core facebook users. #3 All the others with a "free" website and #4 those that consistently want to ram their personal greatness (achieved through doctored filter plug ins in photoshop ) down the throats of other photographers as if they were the next best thing since Pablo bloody Picasso.

And which do you assume i fit, I&M?
What do i call it? A trade, a job or what i do for a living? Profession is simply a term as is trade. I'll refrase my comment so as there's no confusion.

"Why do i so often hear this type of argument aimed at those whom earn a living from the job of taking photographs, from those i presume, do not? Why do i so often feel a hint of resentment? "

[I @ M]

And which do you assume i fit, I&M?
What do i call it? A trade, a job or what i do for a living? Profession is simply a term as is trade. I'll refrase my comment so as there's no confusion.

Don't get too sensitive norwest, I am not "classifying" you in any shape form or manner but the terminology used is till baffling to me.
I am definitely not assuming you ( or any other person on the forum ) fits anywhere.
Profession has always been to me associated with those who went to uni and passed many years of study at such things as dentistry, general medicine, law and so forth. Similarly, trades used to be rewarded by a certificate of practise in a particular field of work as well as education. Now once upon a time there may have been some sort of degree recognised by mainstream education related to photography but these days it seems to have disappeared.
Trades on the other hand were similarly and clearly marked. These days, once again those demarcations are eroding.
We do not have a clearly defined trade or profession of "photography" that is a government recognised degree as we do have with many other fields of endeavour.

As to your question

"Why do i so often hear this type of argument aimed at those whom earn a living from the job of taking photographs, from those i presume, do not?

It is fairly simple, those who earn 50k - 100k pa in their 5 day a week job are always happy to expand their skills on the weekends and pick up another few dollars per week and not have to worry if the kids eat or not the next week if they captured a great photo. Those however that rely on feeding the kids form the weekend shoot will probably be mortified when the "weekend shooter" earns the gig at a lower price. Problem is ---- there are absolutely NO qualifications to bias the purchasing requirements from the "pro" to the weekend shooter and if the latter produces just a good job as the "pro" at a more competitive price. Should there be bias on qualifications? Hands up those who do and do not have relevant "qualifications" and take it from there.

Why do i so often feel a hint of resentment?

Seriously, I think that the resentment you hear is purely a backlash against the so called "pros" who complain about others encroaching on their "profession" which in reality simply isn't ----

[fishographer]

To me it isn't a simple case of just a dollar figure per hour for the job, sure $35 p/h sounds a whole lot better than the $20 p/h many people survive on,but what we are really talking about here, that may be loosely referred to as "profession", is really the level of expertise and skill. To me in order to take pictures worthy of commercial value in a "professional" world for use in marketing and advertising requires a reasonably high level of expertise and for the most part include some type of formal qualification. If you look at the credentials of many "professional" photogs they will have some type of qualifications and with all that comes the expectation of a higher value in payment, you cannot in any way liken that to a relatively unskilled and unqualified position that may pay minimum wage.
For example I pay an unskilled monkey $20 p/hhour to do a reasonably easy job with minimal responsibility, when it comes to a manager I require a higher skill level, some firm of skill and experience but also a higher level of responsibility, this then costs me more like $50 p/h.
These people are advertising for the services of someone with a high level of skill and expertise, professional level equipment but are only willing to pay a low end basic rate. Clearly this is because they have priced professional services and are unwilling to accept the costs associated......they will more than likely deserve what they get.
My brothers partner is a "professional" photographer, she works for a photography business as a paid full time employee and earns $30 an hour for a 9-5 weekday job doing both retail counter work as well as studio shooting with in house equipment.
She also free lances with her own gear and when I told her about this subject she commented that it was common but in most cases the result was poor work, when she quotes for her own freelance work, home shoots, weddings ect, she bases it on a $60p/h rate for shooting and also factors in travelling, post production ect and generally gives a total price for the job. She has never been refused a job yet.

[fishographer]

I forgot to add that she also has a uni degree in graphic design and digital media.

[I @ M]

T

To me in order to take pictures worthy of commercial value in a "professional" world for use in marketing and advertising requires a reasonably high level of expertise and for the most part include some type of formal qualification. If you look at the credentials of many "professional" photogs they will have some type of qualifications and with all that comes the expectation of a higher value in payment, you cannot in any way liken that to a relatively unskilled and unqualified position that may pay minimum wage.

Sorry fishographer, I am not picking on anything you say but where do the recognised "degrees" in photography come from?

She has never been refused a job yet.

OK, she earns $30.00 an hour behind the counter and quotes at $60.00 an hour for extra curricular activities.
Either she is talented and selling herself too cheaply because she doesn't need the extra income or she is simply selling herself too cheaply.

[fishographer]

I don't understand your " selling herself too cheaply" comment.
The business she is employed at obviously takes all the risk by setting up the business, supplying a studio environment, supplies gear and equipment as well as post production and printing equipment, she is employed to do a particular job that only utilizes her skill level but without her needing to be responsible for the risk.
As for her private work she bases her fee on a basic rate for shooting, obviously if it's a quick family portrait close to home that only takes an hour or two with no post production and the supply of pictures on a disc the clearly that's all she will only charge that minimal fee however a wedding event, with traveling, set up, lots of shooting with extra gear, sometimes even hiring gear, post production and some type of presentation or printing than clearly this could all work out at well over $100p/h......like I said she will quote in a job with a total cost based on the level of work needed to be done and an estimation on time. Clearly for the most part there is a little more to it than "you bring you gear and we will pay you this much an hour" when they are expecting a high grade of work

[Art Vandelay]

There's more than a few uni students as casual pizza delivery drivers & the like out there using 20k worth of car who'd be better off out taking photos with 20k worth of gear on those contract rates.

People will take them up on it.

[fess67]

The truth is there is validity on both sides of the fence here.

There are many out there who will accept this type of engagement and be happy with it. Be it to break into the industry or just for the fun of doing it. Are they professionals? hmmm we have to define the term ....enough around the forums on that so not going there.

Is it good or bad for the industry? That is probably the better question.

Good in a way, we see people given a chance to participate. Bad because the guys at the top take all the money. Bad because it is not enough to live on and squeezes people who rely on that work as a main income. But, as has been mentioned in one of the posts above, people will need to adapt because this is the way the industry is going.

Let me give you an example. My wife runs a travel agency. 20 years ago people went into travel agencies and booked holidays. Now there are many options to buy on the web. Does she moan about the web operators? Hell yeah!!! But she also works a way to stay in the game - funny enough many of the clients that migrated to the web are now coming back because they want quality advice not just to purchase something.

Quality will always shine through so strive to be as good as you can be.

[kiwi]

Just for a bit of a giggle, a widely understood baseline rate to run a profitable photography business based on an hourly rate (while shooting) is $100 per hour




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fishographer]

True that Art, true that, I knew a few from my uni days with "bachelor of arts" degrees that ended up stacking shelves in super markets, mind you I did plenty of that in my early days too, builds character
After all my years in business though I have learnt one valuable lesson regardless of the industry, if you want quality work or services it will cost you a premium simple as that

[norwest]

Don't get too sensitive norwest, I am not "classifying" you in any shape form or manner but the terminology used is till baffling to me.
I am definitely not assuming you ( or any other person on the forum ) fits anywhere.

With respect IM, your statement of 'The only people I see using it are', explained in four categories, left no options available to think otherwise. There is no exclusion option # 5.

Seriously norwest, the term "profession" is so hackneyed as to be truly cringe worthy in this day and age. The only people I see using it are #1 Hard core filkr posters. #2 Hard core facebook users. #3 All the others with a "free" website and #4 those that consistently want to ram their personal greatness (achieved through doctored filter plug ins in photoshop ) down the throats of other photographers as if they were the next best thing since Pablo bloody Picasso.

[zollo]

So much of this thread is just an opinion and not based on current reality, that it should be quoted as such, sorry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[reaction]

Trying to sidestep the usual tempers and arguments, it would really interest me to know how many replies this company got, compared to other similar ads.

To me it sounds like a temp job, where you'd get a call on a Thurs avo at 2pm to come around for 'about an hour' shoot at 5pm, bring all your gear.
If so it would be hard to recover just expenses (travel, gear insurance)

I see nowhere to suggest it's a 9-5 job or even a guarantee of 30hrs paid work/wk, so it's useless to compare with $10 flipping burger jobs which have fixed times.

[para]

I just got second in a quote to shoot team photos, I estimated 5 hours work , I was most expensive at $400, winner was $100 including 6 8x10's and there were 6 others between $100 and $300 !!!!

That is ridiculous by the time you go to the event fuel etc $100 not worth it just covering costs