Finding a photographer

[Vanquisher]

I totally see your point, and believe in it to a certain extent as a photographer. A couple of counter-points for thought:
If the photographer "cleans-up" the images using editing software, which print are you entitled to? The original or the one that the photographer's additional time and talent was spent on (beyond the sitting fee)...

If you take those images and have them developed at a crappy place and tell people that so-and-so did your pictures, it is falsely representing the photographer's ability. The loss of revenue would then be in additional clients, not just prints.

As I think about venturing more into the professional photography realm, this gives me some things to ponder!

No, if they take the photos you pay for would be the originals, unless you paid extra for "retouching."
You risk losing business IN any business. If you keep your clients happy and give them the images they want and are happy with them, their "word-of-mouth" recommendation will mean far more than the actual images, which should be good. I can use photoshop better than just about anyone, so I wouldn't need to pay for someone else to do that for me. If a client cannot use photoshop, then a photographer can include that with a CD package. For $25, the photographer will include retouched images alongside the originals, as an example.

Since I drew this corollary: Let's say you get your hand fixed, and an old local friend sees that you have a scar. They comment that they need carpal tunnel surgery done. You realize that your scar isn't the prettiest ever, but it's not bad. However, you LOVE your surgeon. He was kind, caring, and did an excellent job. Your pain is gone, and you are ecstatic. You tell your friend that you highly recommend this surgeon, and they comment that your scar looks a bit big, but you tell them all of the excellent things YOU loved about seeing this surgeon, and they get to make their own choice. Maybe they will choose a different surgeon based on another friend who has a pretty scar, but maybe their hand still hurts and the surgeon didn't do a good job on their surgery. In fact, their scar only looks so good because of the resident who closed the case that day and their good genes. Similarly, a photographer's subject may have a monster zit or have picked the wrong color shirt which makes their work look less attractive than it might actually be.

[scrub-jay]

I totally see your point, and believe in it to a certain extent as a photographer. A couple of counter-points for thought:
If the photographer "cleans-up" the images using editing software, which print are you entitled to? The original or the one that the photographer's additional time and talent was spent on (beyond the sitting fee)...

If you take those images and have them developed at a crappy place and tell people that so-and-so did your pictures, it is falsely representing the photographer's ability. The loss of revenue would then be in additional clients, not just prints.

Fine, then charge me for your editing time in addition to the sitting fee, I would honestly not mind paying for this at all. As for controlling what I do with the photos of my family, I don't understand why the photographer has to exercise so much control. If I bought a painting and put it in a new frame, say one that my child made out of macaroni...the artist could not come back and say "that is not how I wanted this displayed" or say I covered half the painting in splatter paint... also, not up to the artist. If I bought a designer custom purse, and then customized it further... not up to the artist, even if I did butcher their original work. Or wearing designer clothing wrong... No other artist exercises the same control of the products I purchase than photographers. I wouldn't mind paying a large sitting/editing fee if it meant the final product is MINE.

As for violating copyright, this is why I got full-res copies of my wedding photos, no prints and a written full release of copyright with permission to use the photos in anyway I saw fit. I have complete editing, printing, and manipulation rights of my wedding photos. I know several individuals who would gladly pay more than the going rates for a permanent product with full release of rights.

ETA: Cross-posted with Heidi. And - to the note of Facebook owning my photos... ever wonder why there are no pictures of my dd on there? Yea.

[Vanquisher]

I agree scrub-jay!

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I agree with scrub-jay. I am TOTALLY willing to pay an additional fee for appropriate editing time as I believe the photographer is still adding value there beyond what I am capable of and as a professional, should be reimbursed as such for their expertise and time. Just as I am willing to pay for medical follow-up visits, etc.

I just don't like the fact that I've paid for a product and then am repeatedly charged to use my own product unless I pay ANOTHER fee to own my product.

[peggyfromwastate]

Wow...

I didn't even think of any of this.

If the photographer does the prints- what's special about their prints? Where do photographers get their prints made that is so far superior?

[SoonerTexan]

Most of the time you are paying for a sitting fee and then the actual product. Just like you pay for an appt with a doctor and then the necessary drugs, labs, etc. separately to continue the doctor comparison (though I'm not sure it is the best one)

Just like any other profession, there are asshole photographers that take these things to the extreme. One of the smartest (and most successful) ones I know has a great mantra whenever someone complains about a client wanting "X"--"Never say no, just say X much." And just like any other profession outside of our own, we tend to undervalue the time, equipment, talent, etc. necessary to get a quality product.

And as far as editing, we're not just talking about retouching. When a photographer says editing, they are talking about:

--Loading and culling all the images. I only keep about 1/2 of what I take and sometimes only give the client 1/3. Every photo I take isn't good. I'm not Jesus.
--Adjusting white balance, contrast etc.
--Formatting the images for print/disc

If I'm REALLY going above and beyond I'll edit out zits and whiten smiles, but the basic editing necessary to deliver ANY photos takes LOTS and LOTS of time.

FWIW, I did this breakdown for someone else:

.I now charge $200 for a 1.5 hour family photo session ($100 session fee, $100 to buy the disc of images if you want to print them yourself)

A lot of people would say, holy crap--$200 for 1.5 hours of work?! What a rip off!!!

When actually, I'm really losing money right now--the session I did tonight breaks down like this:

1.5 hours of drive time to and from the site
1.5 hours of shooting
3 hours of editing and preparation of the disc

6 hours= $33.3/hour

Still seems pretty good, right?

Well, let's not forget the other overhead costs:

--80 miles worth of gas (let's be cheap and say $10)
--$1500 camera body
--Memory card ($30 for one card plus I have to have backups)
--Lenses ($500--and that is really cheap compared to most photogs)
--$1000 laptop (It was really $2k, but I use it for other things, so lets say $100)
--$300 website (Ha, if I ever get it live)
--$100 annual hosting fee
--$100 gallery site annual fee
--$600 editing software (that is in woeful need of updating)
--$300 in misc photography equipment (flash, accessories)
--$100 backup hard drive (and I really need another!)

=$4540

If I did 20 sessions this year, that's an average overhead cost of $227/session. And I've only done about 10 sessions this year because this is not a full time job for me. So, I pretty much lost $25 tonight. Right now it is worth it to me because I am slowly building up a business and I get to use the equipment for my own use.

Of course this cost goes down based on how long I use equipment for and how many sessions I do, but I'm making a point.

Plus:
--Approx 10% sales tax because I don't cheat the gov on what I sell
--$300 of fees to make my business legal

And my overhead is really low compared to most photographers.

[peggyfromwastate]

And Heidi-- you recently had your pics done right? Did you get a photographer who would give you the cd of hi res images and then you did your own touch up?

[Vanquisher]

Yes. But the images that were given to me at first (which were supposed to be included) were lo-res. I had to ask and pay extra for the high-res ones, and this is a friend of mine. I think she took advantage of me with it, and I ended up buying a print from her which was SUPER, ridiculously, expensive because she made me feel guilty. I paid for a sitting fee and the images. She retouched some of them, but I told her it wasn't necessary, that I was capable.

I only did a doctor comparison, because it is something we can relate to, and I actually think it's not THAT horrible of one.

But, if I pay for those things - a sitting fee, and and CD of images, then I shouldn't get a low-res copy trying to pass it off as "digital copies of all your photos." Yes, but not really. There is nothing to stop me from taking a picture print, scanning it in, and reprinting it. If I pay for a photograph, it should therefore be MINE. MINE. MINE.

[SoonerTexan]

But, if I pay for those things - a sitting fee, and and CD of images, then I shouldn't get a low-res copy trying to pass it off as "digital copies of all your photos."

Agreed.

There is nothing to stop me from taking a picture print, scanning it in, and reprinting it.

No, there isn't, except it is illegal.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I agree with you ST that there is more than just a sitting fee and that I am willing to pay for travel, editing, and a small portion of the overheard allocated to my business (just like as consultants we charge them a small admin fee, ec.). And I know there's more to editing than opening Photoshop, there's a lot that has to be done. Again, all of which I'm willing to pay for.

But I resent that I have to pay SO much for a CD of images that I feel like I've already paid for and then the photog can still use/control the images as he or she pleases.

[peggyfromwastate]

I'm still wondering why the prints from photogs are so expensive-- do they print at "better" places? What are the pitfalls of getting prints made at Costco?

[Vanquisher]

Ummm, overhead is overhead. So, it is what it is. Let's talk x-rays again, cause it is taking pictures.

We have to hire someone to take the pictures at nearly $145 for a day of work, just in salary, plus benefits.
The x-ray machine itself cost 90K
We had to take a loan out to finance it, and are paying interest on it.
We have to pay to insure it
We have to pay taxes on it
We have to pay the lease on the building
We have to pay malpractice insurance
We have to pay for unemployment insurance
We have to pay for worker's comp
We have to pay licensing fees for it
We have to pay for computers
We have to pay for software to run it
We have to pay for the room to be built to house the machine (lead-lines walls) and special electrical breakers and a generator, etc.
We have to pay to maintain it (like replacement bulbs)
We have to pay for the server to house the images
We have to pay for the firewall to protect the information
There are SOOOOO many intangible expenses and tangible expenses, that I can't even begin to list them all. Like coffee for the staff and paper for the forms and ink for the printer that JUST allow us to shoot x-rays!
Every x-ray that is taken, the patient (sometimes 500 pounds of them - not exaggerating) needs to be positioned. The x-ray needs to be adjusted and edited and loaded into the computer. The physician then needs to read them and make treatments plans and diagnoses off of these. All of these things are bundled into the cost of an x-ray.

Let's say you are doing a wrist x-ray. Three view study of the wrist. Medicare reimbursement for that (which most insurance reimbursement is based off of), is $37.49. That's over 2500 x-rays just to almost pay for the machine! Nothing else! Sitting fee - standard new patient office visit which adds a whole hell of a lot more overhead, reimburses at $106.14.

[SoonerTexan]

But Heidi, you aren't happy with the reimbursement rates, right? If you don't like it, why should a different industry suffer the same pitfalls because one has been so screwed?

T&S, you could buy the exclusive rights from the photographer, but it would be very very expensive. Check out commercial photography pricing...it's along those lines. It's just how copyright law works. When you buy a CD, you don't "own" the right to use the songs any way you choose. You get to enjoy them in a predefined capacity. (though the music industry and photography industry have both "suffered" from the digital age)

Peggy--You'll get a better print quality from a pro studio vs. Costco/Wal-Mart/Target. Mpix is pretty much pro quality, though. If you are printing something to display, I'd go for Mpix. Snapshots to send to grandma? Wal-Mart is fine. Costco probably has the best quality in my experience as far as chain stores go, but it really depends on the specific store, how the machine has been serviced, and whether or not the guy behind the counter is an idiot. Which might be why Costco is better.

I admit I had a similar perspective when I first started shooting...you can see it in some of my old posts. However, after doing it for a few years, talking to other photographers, and crunching the numbers, my perspective has drastically changed.

[Vanquisher]

No, I'm not happy about it. But, I can't control it. You can charge more and possibly get paid more. We can't. We are paid by a third party and cannot control what they pay.

I think $200 is more than reasonable for what you do. Perhaps you should charge more? Maybe a travel charge for shoots that are over a certain number of miles?

My point is that all business owners have overhead and have to pay for things that clients don't even think about. It's up to the business owner (unless they have no control over it, like us) to come up with a pricing structure that pays for their overhead and attracts clients. Sometimes you have to eat more costs up front to set up the business, but hopefully, as you build clients you can turn a profit.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

I'm still wondering why the prints from photogs are so expensive-- do they print at "better" places? What are the pitfalls of getting prints made at Costco?

Peggy - you can get your prints made at the same places as the pros - the images look much better because each print is looked at and tweaked if needed in the lab (color adjustment, etc). They are not even that much more costly! I use PhotoPro. Computer monitors and cameras are not always well-calibrated.

Heidi - I totally get what you're saying. I don't think there is one best way to handle images, which is why there is such a wide range in the field. I, personally, lean towards "the pictures are yours, but give me credit" - similar to someone's return to the golf course usually is followed by a shout-out to the orthopod