Question for the professionals

[pvoices1971]

I'm assuming you're a portrait/wedding shooter ?

While I completely agree with your comments about the comparison with PAYG. I'd have to respond to you on the other points.

What many of my peers forget is that more and more people simply dont have the need for prints.

My clients have rarely wanted prints - even prior to digital.

And in my view there isnt a 8 x 12 digital image available that cant be printed to a fairly acceptable level into a wall sized canvas. So there's little point in thinking that you are limiting what you provide.

Yes I do portrait photography, and I understand completely and respect the situation with commercial photography. As for the 8x12 that has to do with market perception and me placing value in the work that I do, I don't disagree that yes you could print it larger for sure and if they had photoshop they could do a decent enlargement again , but then if they have PS they probably have a DSLR and they would not have come to me in the first place.

I would probably tend to disagree that people don't need prints, they said the same thing about newspapers (my F/T job) and a significant market sector will always want to buy the newspaper and feel it between their fingers rather than view it online, I think they same will always apply with photography as well, albeit that it may be a diminishing market.

[Wayne]

Well thats the whole point Wayne.


What you need to do is to be able to charge a price which isnt dependant on the print price to make money.

Which my example clearly shows, that the "old" thinking of rorting the print pricing to make the work viable is alive and well, at least here anyway, and further affirms there are still those doing business that are reluctant to hand over the digital files. That was my whole point of posting the quoted pricing.

And Kiwi I'm quite sure is in a position to decide what he wants to charge when it comes to photography.

His own words, not mine....

[elGrando]

Just out of curiosity as a noob I get my photos printed at Camera house as in a rural area there isnt much of an option that I know of other than the elcheapo kmart etc. Where do you professionals get your shots printed?

Also I was recently PISSED OFF that my wife paid $190 for a single portrait of our 2 kids about A4 ( no idea wat size) framed in a piece of coloured cardboard. My mum told her it was a free sitting and you only pay if you want a photo. I had no idea until the photo was delivered and went off about it. As I said im a noob but the photo was bloody ordinary.

Just to add so theres no criticism that they spent hours shooting and processing it only lasted about 15 minutes and my PP skills as ordinary as they are could have done a decent job

[Longshots]

I would probably tend to disagree that people don't need prints

I didnt say that, and havent ever said that.

What I said was "My clients have rarely wanted prints - even prior to digital.". That's MY CLIENTS, who I described as 99.9% commercial.

So you're disagreeing with my comment about what My clients want ? - ah yes thats good you clearly know my clients better than me

[Longshots]

Just out of curiosity as a noob I get my photos printed at Camera house as in a rural area there isnt much of an option that I know of other than the elcheapo kmart etc. Where do you professionals get your shots printed?

Depends on your location in what might be the best recommendation for you. But you could easily seek a few of the better labs in capital cities and they'll send your order by post to you - Digilab in Brisbane is one place I would recommend. But I rarely need to get any prints done, and when I do need to produce the rare print, I prefer to use my own inhouse printing on an Epson 3800

[pvoices1971]

What many of my peers forget is that more and more people simply dont have the need for prints.

I didnt say that, and havent ever said that.

What I said was "My clients have rarely wanted prints - even prior to digital.". That's MY CLIENTS, who I described as 99.9% commercial.

So you're disagreeing with my comment about what My clients want ? - ah yes thats good you clearly know my clients better than me

No Longshots I'm disagreeing with the first quote - of course I don't know your clients - when you say peers I assumed you meant photographers, perhaps you could have better defined that as commercial photographers. Hope that provides some clarification for you

[TOM]

now that i have gone back to shooting weddings with film, my $/hr net has risen dramatically due to the convenience of the medium, despite the cost incurred for consumables per job. i know that if i'm doing a job with digital, my $/hr charged need to be higher in order to maintain the same bottom line. i need to account for hire costs as well as post processing.

i tend to also think that, despite many clients not wanting prints (virtually all of mine want at least some, commercial clients exc.), they will be valued far more in years to come, than the 400 digital files they have sitting on a hard drive that are long forgotten. Just a handful, maybe not even that is all they need, but i make sure my clients have at least that.

[terry.langham]

Given what is on offer at the prices quoted, it depends upon what choice of prints you select.

If you take 25x 5x7 and the web images(which is a simple export from LR etc) then processing 25 images takes somewhat more time than the 12x 8x12's in offer (C).

It also depends upon how proficient you are with the PP. The session fee includes up to 1.5hrs, so @$100/hr you have 3.5hrs+ processing time before your rate falls below $100/hr and that is after the cost of prints have been considered.

So is it reasonable to think a competent person can PP 12 - 8x12's or 25 - 5x7's in 3.5hrs?

Oh, and if you want this hi-res digital pics, add $60 per image minimum of 4x on top of the $400 you have to spend on prints. I would think that at these prices, the margin is $100/hr without too much trouble.

I guess to me the package offered here is very poor value, especially with the lack of inclusion and cost of Hi-res files, and essentially my point being some still choose to exclude the Hi-res files unless you pay a kings ransom for them in addition to charging handsomely for prints.

I have had several people ask me to shoot for them, because they simply refuse to pay these prices, and they want the Hi-res digital files so they can print themselves both now and in future.

Don't forget to factor in the cost to rent a premises for a studio/office, the 15min spent on the initial phone inquiry, the 30min spent at the first 'appointment' to 'sell' the product to the client, the 30min to select the photos for a given package, the time spent when the prints are picked up, and time spent making phone calls during the process, as well as the cost of phones, electricity etc.

Personally I don't think the given example is expensive at all. But then again I am probably a bit biased to the photographer as I too run a small business.

[campo]

When my clients ask why prints are so expensive, I simply explain to them that it takes time to prepare a print for printing - whether it be photoshopping, cropping, changing aspect ratio or factoring in time to meet with them. I find after explaining and educating the clients a little, they're more receptive and understanding that it's not simply a matter of (Price) - (Cost of print) = (profit)

[virgal_tracy]

I guess to me the package offered here is very poor value, especially with the lack of inclusion and cost of Hi-res files, and essentially my point being some still choose to exclude the Hi-res files unless you pay a kings ransom for them in addition to charging handsomely for prints.

I have had several people ask me to shoot for them, because they simply refuse to pay these prices, and they want the Hi-res digital files so they can print themselves both now and in future.

There are many analogies that you can use to argue with this. Your whole point about clients wanting to print the images themselves brings up a couple of issues mainly relating to both loss of income for the photographer and also the representation of the photographers skill by possibly poor quality reprints. (certainly not saying that the Big W's and H.N.'s of this world can not supply quality prints, just generally don't)

When you go to a restaurant for dinner, do you ask the chef for the recipe? Do you think they would give it to you?

If you have a project home built do you think you could take those plans to another builder to have that same house built by someone else? (architects are different in that you will pay much more for the plans)

When my clients ask why prints are so expensive, I simply explain to them that it takes time to prepare a print for printing - whether it be photoshopping, cropping, changing aspect ratio or factoring in time to meet with them. I find after explaining and educating the clients a little, they're more receptive and understanding that it's not simply a matter of (Price) - (Cost of print) = (profit)

This again doesn't even go into paying for the software, training, skill, equipment, insurance etc ,etc,etc. I also ask clients to value their own time. How long would it take them to get images of the quality I provide, prepare them for printing, take them to wherever for printing, wait for the printing to be done and then travel home again. When they start to think about this they realise that they aren't that expensive at all.

[campo]

This again doesn't even go into paying for the software, training, skill, equipment, insurance etc ,etc,etc. I also ask clients to value their own time. How long would it take them to get images of the quality I provide, prepare them for printing, take them to wherever for printing, wait for the printing to be done and then travel home again. When they start to think about this they realise that they aren't that expensive at all.

Exactly and well said!

[Wayne]

Don't forget to factor in the cost to rent a premises for a studio/office, the 15min spent on the initial phone inquiry, the 30min spent at the first 'appointment' to 'sell' the product to the client, the 30min to select the photos for a given package, the time spent when the prints are picked up, and time spent making phone calls during the process, as well as the cost of phones, electricity etc.

Personally I don't think the given example is expensive at all. But then again I am probably a bit biased to the photographer as I too run a small business.

Terry, this photographer has a huge studio but fortunately it is free, it is known as the great outdoors! They don't do studio shots unless you are providing the studio, house, venue etc.....I agree, you may be biased.
Clearly the number of people asking me to shoot for them, who have seen this photographers pricing and comment to me what a "rip off" it is, demonstrates without doubt that the market (remember things are only as valuable as the market permits them to be) here feels it is for the most part poor value.

[Wayne]

There are many analogies that you can use to argue with this. Your whole point about clients wanting to print the images themselves brings up a couple of issues mainly relating to both loss of income for the photographer and also the representation of the photographers skill by possibly poor quality reprints. (certainly not saying that the Big W's and H.N.'s of this world can not supply quality prints, just generally don't)

When you go to a restaurant for dinner, do you ask the chef for the recipe? Do you think they would give it to you?

If you have a project home built do you think you could take those plans to another builder to have that same house built by someone else? (architects are different in that you will pay much more for the plans)



This again doesn't even go into paying for the software, training, skill, equipment, insurance etc ,etc,etc. I also ask clients to value their own time. How long would it take them to get images of the quality I provide, prepare them for printing, take them to wherever for printing, wait for the printing to be done and then travel home again. When they start to think about this they realise that they aren't that expensive at all.

When you pay an architect you get the plans, and why couldn't you get any qualified builder to build to plan?

The food a chef serves is very different in that you can't simply reproduce it like you can with a print, if you want it again, you start from scratch with raw ingredients, a photo is finished, simply print away. I fail to see the relationship between these two.

Regardless of the feeling many precious professional photographers have, your ability to keep digital files, and/or charge extortionate prices for them along with prints is dying. The market commands better value. Ignore that at your peril.

I reckon anyone getting anywhere near $100/hr for photographic work is doing pretty well, especially part time operators. Many people with tertiary qualifications who have done 4+ years at uni earn much less. Granted photography costs for the gear, but it is a depreciable asset and amortised over it's life the cost per use for a busy pro is quite small.

[pvoices1971]

When you pay an architect you get the plans, and why couldn't you get any qualified builder to build to plan?

The food a chef serves is very different in that you can't simply reproduce it like you can with a print, if you want it again, you start from scratch with raw ingredients, a photo is finished, simply print away. I fail to see the relationship between these two.

Regardless of the feeling many precious professional photographers have, your ability to keep digital files, and/or charge extortionate prices for them along with prints is dying. The market commands better value. Ignore that at your peril.

I reckon anyone getting anywhere near $100/hr for photographic work is doing pretty well, especially part time operators. Many people with tertiary qualifications who have done 4+ years at uni earn much less. Granted photography costs for the gear, but it is a depreciable asset and amortised over it's life the cost per use for a busy pro is quite small.

Clearly different photographers cater to different markets. What I would like you to consider is how much your hourly cost of living is and if you are doing this as a business combine that with your hourly cost of business and see how much you have left out of $100/hour (working hours). Ignore that at your peril.

[campo]

The food a chef serves is very different in that you can't simply reproduce it like you can with a print, if you want it again, you start from scratch with raw ingredients, a photo is finished, simply print away. I fail to see the relationship between these two.

a chef isn't going to give away his recipe for free...likewise, a photographer isn't going to give away his "recipe" for a good photograph/print for free either.

I reckon anyone getting anywhere near $100/hr for photographic work is doing pretty well, especially part time operators. Many people with tertiary qualifications who have done 4+ years at uni earn much less.

This is the problem, it's not $100/hr cash in pocket. It's $100/hr less expenses/taxes etc,!! In fact you'd probably find that most uni graduates earn more then most photographers! Trust me, I know what I earn in my day job, and after doing the business plan etc it's highly unlikely I'll see this amount of income when I start running my photography business full time!

If people want a specialised professional service, they need to be prepared to pay for it. Meanwhile, I'm happy for all the backyard amateur photographers to take the clients who want everything for nothing :-) good luck to them

[kiwi]

yip, when i did my accounts I still made a considerable paper loss. I could charge double and still not make a profit if you take into account depreciation, software, insurance, memberships etc etc

[minnum]

I offer packages that include a mix of prints and digital files, but many choose to buy just digital files. My sessioon-fee is $125 and I sell 18 fully edited full resolution files for $700 (which I actually think I need to raise) or all edited images (20 in colour and those same images in black and white) for $899 (needs to go up too). I need to sell for $599 to get an hourly wage of about $30 (AFTER tax)... there's so much to factor in.. studio rent, insurance ($700 a year), website cost, props, savings for new equipment. I spend about 10 hours in total on each client (2 hours on the shoot, 30min travel, 30min emailing, 5 hours editing (I specialise in newborns, lots of baby acne, jaundice, red patches etc), 1 hour viewing session, 1 hour printing and packaging, accounting. I average sales at around $700-900, which is very average and when properly factoring in all the expenses and time involved not a huge profit (don't forget time spent on your business in general, like marketing, updating your website, uploading to facebook or blog - you want to pay yourself for that time too). I think way too many people price themselves too low and don't realise that they've actually ended up working for $10 an hour!!!!! $30 an hour after tax (and ALL expenses etc etc) is my minimum pay that I will do this job for, and I have my packages set up in a way that I never have sales less than that. My $399 package includes hardly anything and I have never sold it for that reason.

Back to the actual question. If they buy the disc I give them a recommendation of a great, local lab where the printing is fantastic.

[Gypsy]

Wow Minna, putting it all in writing you can certainly see the cost of what you are doing!

I charge a lot less than that at the moment, but I feel I'm still just merging into the industry. I dont make much of a profit at all at the moment (actually I run at a loss) it's mostly about getting the experience and portfolio building at this stage for me. I dont have a studio either... my loungroom gets converted into a studio prior to a shoot (or we go out on location).
I'll be upping my prices soon, but that's because I'm adding more procuts to my packages (photo boxes, albums etc.). I think people seem to be happy to walk away with somthing physical rather than loose prints and a disk.
I should up my prices i think because my disk usually contains around 50 fully edited images x3 (colour, B&W and Sepia) so around 150 images all up. It's a lot of processing to do especially if I'm doing my branches etc. where you have to clone out mum/dad's hands & bodies, beanbag etc.

[minnum]

Hi Liss :-)
I spent a year portfolio-building and did all my sessions for nothing, only prints at print-price. Then when I set up my website and decided to start charing a bit I put my "where I want to be in a couple of years prices" on my website as my prices, but in brackets I put "current special offer .... " (and then the discounted price, which I felt comfortable with charging as I was only starting out. By doing it this way, clients will not be hugely shocked when prices slowly go up, they understand that they got it at a discounted price and the prices stated are what is usually charged.

[Gypsy]

That's a great idea Minna, something I might have to consider doing!

I currently dont have my prices displayed online, people contact me for a price list. And I did that for that reason... I dont want to shock people or upset them, having them say 'Oh but last month your price was only $XX.XX'.

Plans for the future include my own studio, but it is more along the lines of building one in the back yard. (We're moving soon, most houses in the area have side/rear lane access, so hoping I can section off an area just for my studio). So as I prepare for that it's going to cost a fair bit. I'm going to have to cover the cost somehow! But the end results should mean a better product and enviroment for my clinets Very excited about it!

You've always been happy to help and give advice, I appreciate it alot. xx