The last two editions of Capture Magazine

[ricktas]

I know plenty of photographers - full time and part time - who will and can shoot a house for less then $100, inside and outside, with views. Some are quite good, and some are quite dreadful. And they will have to do it within a remarkable short time - they would need to do that if they want to stay in business, otherwise they may as well go and earn more being on a till at Big W.

And I know plenty who will spend two to three days shooting the same house, and carefully processing the images from the shoot, with plenty of pedantic care and attention to the small details.

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

Come on take the challenge you know you all want to ?

Its business. There are different prices out there. The market will and always has worked out who wins and who loses. And its not always the one that go for the cheaper end that will be the loser.

So from a pros point of view, a few people commenting on the woes of the industry should not automatically label everyone with the same view.

Yep and to use the same industry comparison. Some real estate agents advertise they take commission of 3% flat, on the total sale value of a property, others charge significantly above that. People still go to the higher commission places, yet both can sell the same house. Why would you...Cause paying a higher commission means probably a better advertising campaign, if going to Auction, a better final price (maybe), service and reputation..thats why! and it applies to photographers too. Some people can do well in an industry while others fail, is that the fault of the industry, or the particular person in it? My thoughts are that whilst there is an over-supply of photographers, it is those that don't have the commitment and dedication that will fall off the way-side.

[Longshots]

I do wish someone would take up my challenge though. Its soo relevant to this conversation and a few answers would highlight the issue.

Come on, surely one person is up for a try - it's a simple enough question:

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 houses = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

[kiwi]

OK, I'll bite

Its not how much you earn, income is the same in both case

It's the costs

Im going to assume that your physical time spent is the same, so no change to labour rate
Im going to assume that the costs of say travel alone will cause you to make more profit on job #2

[Bear Dale]

I was one of the people interviewed, you're also including me in that sweeping statemnt.

It was a statement in regards to the 5 professional portrait photographers in the portrait special Trade Secrets.

Unless you use a pseudonym here or you used a pseudonym in the article I don't think you are one of those five. Though you can correct me if I am wrong on this count.

In regards to my statement. I wholeheartedly stand by my original post and my comments on the photographers in relation to the article. I no way am I generalising these comments to all professional photographers, only the pubic comments made by these 5.
They put their thoughts out there and their thoughts are public and may be scrutinized.

[kiwi]

pubic comments always get a bit hairy

But, I read that you thought that these 5 were probably representative of the industry view as well to be honest

[Longshots]

OK so cheers for clarifying. The original comment did follow your very first sentence of referring to two issues of Capture, and no I dont use a pseudonym. Unlike many here I use my real name.

So now we've understood each other, lets put that behind us. Yes they put their thoughts out there - just like you have, and yes I'm scrutnising everyone, because thats why I assume you started this topic.

Would you now like to respond to the actual points you've made about high pricing concerns ?

And Kiwi, I thought at least you would take on the fairly simple question with an answer ?

Come on, there seems to be an issue with high pricing, so why not answer the oh so simple question of mine in response to this topic ?


And BTW Capture is an independent magazine - ie neithe AIPP or ACMP influence its editorial content. Its actually been previously closer tied (in the way of content subject matter) to ACMP in the past.

Another BTW 5 people do not speak for the overall industry.

And it all comes down to the reading - anyone else here other than Jim and myself read the entire piece he's referring to ? Not many I think, as I have read it and clearly reached a very different conclusion to Jim.

[Bear Dale]

William, just read your article written by Julian Watt and it brought a smile to my face. I like your disarming technique and the assisants fetish comment was very funny. Congrats on your interview and being published.

My original post was in reference to Marc Gafen's article, sorry if I inadvertantly cloistered you with that article and those five photographers featured in that article.

What did you think of the other interview and thoughts? Is it something that has always been there in the photographic industry or has digital made the blur between amateur and pro even harder to discern?

[I @ M]

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

There are so many variables in a scenario such as that to answer 100% correctly but I would estimate that generally the higher charging one job per week shooter will have a better income at the end of the year.

Only problem is, I tend to see things back to front at times and I found myself speculating about who was going to be hurt most if one client either simply didn't pay, went bankrupt or didn't like the end product and refused to pay.

[Bear Dale]

pubic comments always get a bit hairy

But, I read that you thought that these 5 were probably representative of the industry view as well to be honest

Fair enough, I thought I was covering being accused of generalisations of all pros with this line -

It was as I have mentioned very interesting reading and an insight into the psyche of at least these professional portrait photographers who were interviewed for the magazine article.

[Longshots]

There are so many variables in a scenario such as that to answer 100% correctly but I would estimate that generally the higher charging one job per week shooter will have a better income at the end of the year.

Only problem is, I tend to see things back to front at times and I found myself speculating about who was going to be hurt most if one client either simply didn't pay, went bankrupt or didn't like the end product and refused to pay.

Thank you Andrew. I wonder if anyone else would like to have a go ?

Once someone has a stab at who they think would make the most profit, I would happily continue on with what I feel would be a reasonable explanation to the economics.

Sorry Kiwi, you sat on the fence as well.

So would anyone else like to answer this question:

Come on, surely one person is up for a try - it's a simple enough question:

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 houses = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

[kiwi]

Did I, job #2....least risk in my opinion for a whole lot of reasons. Less travel, less hassle, let direct costs probably, less chance of bad debt, less chance of missing out to other "cheap end" shooters

But, you have to assume all these things unless youve tried either, and I havent

If costs are the same, possible but unlikely then the profit's the same.

[junqbox]

In my role, I've had many opportunities to commission work from professional photographers. There will always be someone who can come in at a lower price but what I'm also happy to pay for is a professional approach (that means ready to go when the clock starts ticking), they have the right equipment (and enough of it as required), they can create the look that's required and can deliver the work (to brief and expectation) even if something does go pearshaped. Then be there 12 months later if additional rollover costs or whatever are required.
In terms of portraits, you're often not paying for a 'good' shot, you're paying for something that will satisfy the CEOs ego when that shot appears next to his peers.
Now go back and add up the cost of having all that gear on hand, how many years it took to acquire the skill and expertise (and the gear) and you might start getting close to why a pro gets miffed by the backyarders.
They have a genuine concern and are expressing it. You may not like what they say, but it's 'their view'.
I have had someone propose to shoot our product for $40 a shot (finished), I know my general average cost from my preferred supplier is 4-5x that price, but I know the finished product I get will meet all the specs provided, unlike the person who tried telling me they would be able to do the same with lesser equipment, luckily for me i have some photography knowledge, that other prospects may not have had and thus I could ask the technical questions.

[Longshots]

What did you think of the other interview and thoughts? Is it something that has always been there in the photographic industry or has digital made the blur between amateur and pro even harder to discern?

I'd like more time to put my personal view on that specific interview forward

But to answer your last question - the problem is an old one. True it is exasberated by the ease of digital and the simple act of:

1) buying a twin lens dslr kit
2) owning a mobile phone
3) putting up a website
4) "borrowing"/using stock photography that's been shot by someone else to illustrate your website

BTW while 4) while that may sound contentious, its real and it happens.

That's all someone needs to start a business. And that can be achieve for under a grand these days.

[Longshots]

Did I, job #2....least risk in my opinion for a whole lot of reasons. Less travel, less hassle, let direct costs probably, less chance of bad debt, less chance of missing out to other "cheap end" shooters

But, you have to assume all these things unless youve tried either, and I havent

If costs are the same, possible but unlikely then the profit's the same.

There is a small point - and excuse me for being pedantic, but you havent answered the question. I didnt ask you your preferred option Darren

Lets keep this simple

The question was
number 1 shoots 20 houses @ $100 per house
number 2 shoots 1 house for $2,000

Each takes same amount of days. No other information


This is the important bit - this is the original question - Who makes the most profit ? (not what you'd prefer)

[zollo]

#2 makes the most profit

[Bear Dale]

4) "borrowing"/using stock photography that's been shot by someone else to illustrate your website

BTW while 4) while that may sound contentious, its real and it happens.

Thats sad that people can do something like that. Eventually they will be caught out and before that happens they're not only fooling themselves, but they're cheating potential clients and cheating the person they stole the work off.

[kiwi]

The client makes the most profit with no.1

Otherwise no information no difference

[junqbox]

The client makes the most profit with no.1

Otherwise no information no difference

Not necessarily, a real estate agent might be able to gather the interest of a customer who is willing to pay more for a property, based on the photography/ad alone.

[ricktas]

There is a small point - and excuse me for being pedantic, but you havent answered the question. I didnt ask you your preferred option Darren

Lets keep this simple

The question was
number 1 shoots 20 houses @ $100 per house
number 2 shoots 1 house for $2,000

Each takes same amount of days. No other information


This is the important bit - this is the original question - Who makes the most profit ? (not what you'd prefer)

My thoughts. Either! It depends entirely on the individual photographer, their business plan etc. The one who shoots 20 houses, has then had exposure to 20 families. Those 20 families, if they are happy with the shots, and feel they got value for money are likely to recommend the photographer to their family/friends. Whereas the photographer who shot one property, has been exposed to one family, his/her networking ability and word-of-mouth marketing is restricted compared to the other photographer! BUT, the photographer who only shot the one house may have been aiming at a different market, in the mult-million dollar house range, and therefore the ongoing benefits of doing a good job for this shoot, meaning the owners are likely to associate with others in a similar financial demographic, thus the one single house shoot could lead to a lot more work of more value.

I don't believe there is a simple one size fits all answer to your question William!

[CherylB]

Okay - I'll bite!

From an economic point of view, all costs being equal, the second shooter charging $2000 makes the most profit by far!