Calculate your hourly rate

[ricktas]

Though not specifically designed for photography, here is a little calculator that can help you understand all the elements to consider when working out a rate to charge. I hope that even if it doesn't give you a workable rate, that it makes you think about all the aspects of what should be incorporated and considered when working out how much to charge.

http://freelanceswitch.com/rates/

[kiwi]

Doesn't apply if you are a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

Doesn't apply if you are a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not? You could still do some calculations and at least it would make you think about the components that make up what you should charge.

[Longshots]

Doesn't apply if you are a hobbyist

Well to take it back to why I responded, this was all about hourly rates, and you said it didnt apply to you because you were a hobbyist, and then you have confused me further by saying that you're not in business, and now that you are in business Clearly there is plenty of confusion.

The original post about how to calculate your hourly rates is, (which was my point when supporting Ricks post/link), is relevant to all, contrary to your view.

And the information is for everyone and not intended to single you or anyone else out.

[kiwi]

To what end ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[farmer_rob]

Come on Kiwi, you're saying a hobbyist shouldn't charge for his/her photos. Why?

If you are going to charge for photos, this gives you a rough idea of how much it costs you to take them.

[kiwi]

No, I'm saying charge what you think your photos are worth, as a hobbyist the costs are irrelevent as you'd likely do for free largely anyway, you're not running a p&l, paying tax, declaring expenses etc

If you are a pro you need to know obviously, but not as a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

No, I'm saying charge what you think your photos are worth, as a hobbyist the costs are irrelevent as you'd likely do for free largely anyway, you're not running a p&l, paying tax, declaring expenses etc

If you are a pro you need to know obviously, but not as a hobbyist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but why should a good hobbyist (semi pro) not use a similar method to calculate their rates? If I employ two staff who both do the same job, one full time and one part time, I would generally pay them the same hourly rate, if they are doing the same job.

[CherylB]

Not only what Rick said Darren, but there have also been plenty of discussions about "hobbyists" devaluing the profession in general. Yes, there are probably always going to be the low end hobbyists who charge peanuts and deliver .... ummm .... less than exemplary results. However, for the serious hobbyist who is also a pretty good photographer, why should they devalue their time and effort simply because they're not looking to make a profit?

Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!

[farmer_rob]

...
Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!

Taking the site rule about "not giving advice" into consideration, and offering the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer or an accountant, I think you'll find that hobby-related returns are not always treated as income and hence don't always have to be declared. This comes up quite a bit with horse racing and breeding - the tax office are very resistant to hobby breeders managing to declare themselves as professional breeders: the tax on the occasional windfall profit is far exceeded by the potential for offsettable losses, and so the tax office see a net benefit in not having hobbyists declare hobby income. (There are a lot of benefits about being able to convince the tax office that you are professional - the costs of achieving that income become relevant. Think of the photography kit you could buy and write off against your tax - even just the GST.)

As usual, consult an accountant or lawyer in real life (not the internet) before undertaking any action with relation to what is taxable income and claims.

Addenda: Sites such as the one Rick pointed to here add real value to this: If you can establish that it costs you $10,000 a year to take photographs, and you can sell $15,000 a year of photographs (I know, in your dreams), you start to have a business case to move away from being a hobbyist.

[FallingHorse]

Taking the site rule about "not giving advice" into consideration, and offering the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer or an accountant, I think you'll find that hobby-related returns are not always treated as income and hence don't always have to be declared. This comes up quite a bit with horse racing and breeding - the tax office are very resistant to hobby breeders managing to declare themselves as professional breeders: the tax on the occasional windfall profit is far exceeded by the potential for offsettable losses, and so the tax office see a net benefit in not having hobbyists declare hobby income. (There are a lot of benefits about being able to convince the tax office that you are professional - the costs of achieving that income become relevant. Think of the photography kit you could buy and write off against your tax - even just the GST.)

As usual, consult an accountant or lawyer in real life (not the internet) before undertaking any action with relation to what is taxable income and claims.

.

I am pretty sure you can make upto 18K a year on a hobby before having to declare it - we breed cattle as a 'hobby' ... once again check with your relevant tax specialist

[enduro]

No, I'm saying charge what you think your photos are worth, as a hobbyist the costs are irrelevent as you'd likely do for free largely anyway, you're not running a p&l, paying tax, declaring expenses etc

If you are a pro you need to know obviously, but not as a hobbyist

HA!

I've never hired a cashy hole digger, tree lopper, mechanic or electrician that thinks that thinks their costs are irrelevant.

If you are shooting photo's and are on the better side of half of good then shoot and charge appropriately. For any industry, there are far too many people out there that can undercharge and either do a crappy job or a maybe a great job and drag down the pay rate of professional photogs or good amateurs.

[kiwi]

but why should a good hobbyist (semi pro) not use a similar method to calculate their rates? If I employ two staff who both do the same job, one full time and one part time, I would generally pay them the same hourly rate, if they are doing the same job.

Would they work just for fun though?

Either of them ?

Do you take photos for fun or to charge ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kiwi]

Not only what Rick said Darren, but there have also been plenty of discussions about "hobbyists" devaluing the profession in general. Yes, there are probably always going to be the low end hobbyists who charge peanuts and deliver .... ummm .... less than exemplary results. However, for the serious hobbyist who is also a pretty good photographer, why should they devalue their time and effort simply because they're not looking to make a profit?

Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!

It's too late and too little to reverse the tide of hobbyists taking work from pros by undercutting

The question is should you care ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kiwi]

Not only what Rick said Darren, but there have also been plenty of discussions about "hobbyists" devaluing the profession in general. Yes, there are probably always going to be the low end hobbyists who charge peanuts and deliver .... ummm .... less than exemplary results. However, for the serious hobbyist who is also a pretty good photographer, why should they devalue their time and effort simply because they're not looking to make a profit?

Anyway, if you're making any income from photography regardless of the amount of skill or the amount of time you put into it, you should be declaring it as income and paying the relevant tax on it. To do anything else would be illegal!

Oh, unless you earn at least $20000 income there is no need or point in declaring photography related income, it's a hobby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Longshots]

Oh, unless you earn at least $20000 income there is no need or point in declaring photography related income, it's a hobby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NOT happy Jan !


Have you actually spoken to an accountant on this issue Kiwi ? Because I think you'll find that any income is declarable, and they dont give a rats if you think its a hobby, if you're charging then they want their cut.

And to be utterly honest its this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography, and a dam silly one at that ! Sure you may be lucky or talented enough to have a full time job that allows you to earn enough to then also shoot and gain work normally taken by professionals that you then can then choose to shoot and seriously undercut those depending on that as a living. And let me second guess you here, but before you say that you are just a hobbyist, you actively market towards covering sporting events to an "international level" ? Not really just a hobby ! So perhaps even if you think you're right here, perhaps you should take a little more consideration of those photographers who do have to consider all costs before working out there charges as opposed to simply saying that you dont care about these things?

[Steve Axford]

NOT happy Jan !


Have you actually spoken to an accountant on this issue Kiwi ? Because I think you'll find that any income is declarable, and they dont give a rats if you think its a hobby, if you're charging then they want their cut.

And to be utterly honest its this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography, and a dam silly one at that ! Sure you may be lucky or talented enough to have a full time job that allows you to earn enough to then also shoot and gain work normally taken by professionals that you then can then choose to shoot and seriously undercut those depending on that as a living. And let me second guess you here, but before you say that you are just a hobbyist, you actively market towards covering sporting events to an "international level" ? Not really just a hobby ! So perhaps even if you think you're right here, perhaps you should take a little more consideration of those photographers who do have to consider all costs before working out there charges as opposed to simply saying that you dont care about these things?

I agree that Kiwi is wrong about being able to earn $20,000 without paying tax, but I don't agree that "this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography". Do you really expect everyone to stop and ask if someone is making money from what they do for free? And then to refrain from doing it just because someone is making money from it? Even the professions like law and medicine have had to change to suit modern demands, so why think that photography, which unlike law or medicine has no legal protection, should be any different? You can't turn the clock back to the 1950's, and why would you want to?

[Karl]

The thing is everything has a cost and regardless of whether you are a pro or a hobbyist or whatever, every time you pick up your camera and walk out the door you are incuring a cost to yourself.

So if you get a chance to recover those costs then why not do it in a professional maner and take into considerations all the costs that it cost you to take that picture. Costs include, time, fuel, where and tear of your motr vehicle, entrance fees, food etc.

At the end of the day a hobbyist will sell the phot at whatever price he/she wants but then they have made a concious decision to make a loss.

I have had three articles and photos published in a national magazine and I was paid $50 per article. I estimates that it took me over ten hours of work to produce each article so I was paid at $5 per hour. But I did it because of the type of magazine (it's a free industry based one) and it gives me exposure and experience for when I get to the next level and get published in a glossy mag.

Once I get to that level - even as a hobbyist - I wont be working for $5 an hour and I will ensure that my costs are covered.

Karl

[Longshots]

The thing is everything has a cost and regardless of whether you are a pro or a hobbyist or whatever, every time you pick up your camera and walk out the door you are incuring a cost to yourself.

So if you get a chance to recover those costs then why not do it in a professional maner and take into considerations all the costs that it cost you to take that picture. Costs include, time, fuel, where and tear of your motr vehicle, entrance fees, food etc.

At the end of the day a hobbyist will sell the phot at whatever price he/she wants but then they have made a concious decision to make a loss.

I have had three articles and photos published in a national magazine and I was paid $50 per article. I estimates that it took me over ten hours of work to produce each article so I was paid at $5 per hour. But I did it because of the type of magazine (it's a free industry based one) and it gives me exposure and experience for when I get to the next level and get published in a glossy mag.

Once I get to that level - even as a hobbyist - I wont be working for $5 an hour and I will ensure that my costs are covered.

Karl

Plus I think this comment is the most nail on the head of the topic - which is how to calculate your costs

[Longshots]

I agree that Kiwi is wrong about being able to earn $20,000 without paying tax, but I don't agree that "this type of attitude that is killing off the profession of photography". Do you really expect everyone to stop and ask if someone is making money from what they do for free? And then to refrain from doing it just because someone is making money from it? Even the professions like law and medicine have had to change to suit modern demands, so why think that photography, which unlike law or medicine has no legal protection, should be any different? You can't turn the clock back to the 1950's, and why would you want to?

Dont misunderstand me, I'm not asking for anything. Simply put, in my world, if you're a hobbyist, you're not charging. If you charge you're in business. It makes no difference if you're making a profit or making a loss. Any income is meant to be declared, and after 38 years of declaring my income, and having a variety of jobs, careers and multi careers, I dont need a couple of ten accountants to point out what is obvious to most.

What I meant about the costs Steve, was that you're right there is a difference between someone doing something for free and someone doing it for a charge, but if you intend to emulate those who're doing it for a charge, then its wise to understand the true costs of being in business. Isnt that what this topic was about.

And there is no need to discuss or debate turning the clock back, as there have been decades of hobbyist photographers doing something for free or at a much lower cost than the professional who is having to charge a rate to make a living from the profession of photography. Its something I tackled from the other side of the fence about 30 years ago. It seems to me that its fairly easy to get yourself published. Even easier to chuck up a website without too much of an outlay, have a mobile number no other contact details and claim that you're in business without even going to the trouble of the costs and outlay of a normal business. But its another matter to make a business out of it where you can not only cover the costs of your gear, but tax, insurance, public liability, and support your family (and I dont expect anyone to cover those costs, but pointing out that it can be done), so its worthwhile reading the information originally offered. That was my point.

And if you go back to the original topic headline and content, this subject was all about the working out the true costs of being in business. So those who market, and this is my particular bone of contention, where they have a clearly seperate business, and who are charging, however uneconomically, then they, according to the ATO's website, have to declare all income.


BTW just read Rob's excellent response. I agree with you entirely and your last sentence is exactly what does differentiate the pro from the hobbyist. But be aware that few photographers with websites, state their position and its up to the client to find out how to differentiate between the two.