There is a rapidly growing class of professional hobbyists - people that throw a lot of money and effort into shooting just for the fun of it. I would not be surprised if this puts somewhat downward pressure on the prices in that industry except in the top tier.
What I find interesting though, this question rarely comes up with manual labor, or any kind of job that's considered "dirty" or physically hard. Nobody questions their plumber's bill, for example.
With purely "intellectual" or creative jobs though, a true professional makes things look easy. Which inevitably leads to "but it only took you 15 minutes to fix my computer!".
I love how this breaks down the time involved outside of the actual picture taking. It is similar for other professions as well; you pay for the hour that you are with them but it covers the hours outside of that time as well.
Photography as a profession is currently bifurcated: there are a smallish number of high-end shooters (of whom it sounds like Bickley is one) and a very large number of Guys With Cameras (GWCs) on Craigslist, Model Mayhem, and elsewhere. The temptation is obvious: photography is fun, it's possible to product decent images with cheap gear these days, and a lot of people want to give professional shooting a go.
But the reality is a lot harder:
Let's say you want to make a living as a full-time photographer, and let's set a reasonable middle-class lifestyle at $45,000 a year (your number may be higher or lower). If you're trying to bill at $50, your take-home is probably closer to $25 an hour. To make $45,000, you'll have to bill at least 1,800 hours per year, or 35 hours per week, 52 weeks a year, paid. Adjust those numbers accordingly for vacations, illnesses, etc. (you don't get two weeks of paid vacation as an independent contractor).
Yet a lot of people are comparing real professions with GWCs who just got a D7000 and will shoot for $75 to "get experience." There is a demographically infinite number of these guys. So when average people see how much real professionals cost, they blanch, because they're often comparing pros to GWCs. Some GWCs can be reasonably good. Almost everyone charging over $100 an hour is really good. But there's little middle ground anymore.
One other note: Bickley might be shooting with an $8000 D4 or 1D-X, but by now many of their predecessors can be bought for $1000 – $2000. The OMFG AMAZING cameras of 2008 (Nikon D700, Canon 5D II, Sony's FF camera the name of which escapes me) that lots of pros shot with are $1000 - 1500, and for most purposes at base ISO they're still awesome and overkill. There are still reasons to buy $8000 in gear, but it's possible to produce equivalent work in many situations with much less.
edit: Also, the first $8000 camera one buys is absurdly expensive, but when a new model appears most people sell their old one and use the proceeds to buy the new one, while using the cost of the new one as a tax write-off. Almost no one buys a new $8000 camera from scratch every year.
>> If your heart is not in it 100%, "don't bother" is good advice.
Very true. I would bet that many budding wedding photographers will realize that they're in over their heads the first time they deal with a bridezilla, mob or mog (mother of bride/groom) on the day of the shoot.
Being a pro photographer requires you to be really good with people, especially the bad ones. It's not just enough to be good with a camera.
I shot a wedding as a favor for a friend of a friend, and even though the entire wedding party was a joy to work with, it was some of the most intense and exhausting work I've ever done.
I've loved photography for my entire life, but I don't envy the people who shoot weddings for a living.
Yeah, and most people can't tell the difference between a pro and a GWC. Most people can't tell the difference between $7 and $50 wine, most people like Michael Bay movies, most people think vacationing at the Jersey Shore is the best thing.
The "valuable skills" of a true professional photographer are only valuable if there is demand for it.
I don't make my living as a professional photographer, but have done enough jobs and shoots to have a good feel for it. People who think photogs charge too much have the wrong perception of photography: they think that the hard part of photography is taking the picture (and perhaps knowing how to operate the camera)...and since anyone can, once in awhile, take an amazing photo with something as simple as a phone camera, then why should pro photographers get paid so much when their "work" can be done by amateurs?
In my experience, shooting the photo is the easiest part. Being "there", as in, the right place to shoot the photo, is even more critical. Is your child getting married? Do you really want to experience their wedding vows with a 10-pound camera held in front of your face?
If your photoshoot is non-documentary...i.e. you want to photog to help create a scene...well, now you're not paying for just a photographer, but a creative director.
And of course, a good camera is just a part...sometimes a very small part, of a good photo. Lighting equipment matters much more...and while you may have a great $1000 prosumer camera, you probably don't have $1000 to $10000 in lighting equipment (or the assistants needed to operate it).
And finally, the least fun part of all: editing and organizing the photos. I've heard that editing video takes about 10 hours per minute of usable video...the ratio isn't as drastic for photography, but even photogs with a good workflow (such as a Lightroom setup), can spend hours editing down to the best dozen photos out of a thousand.
To reiterate the point: shooting a photo with a camera is the fun and easy part. The rest of what it takes to make a great photo is what you're paying the big money for.
It is the same with any artistic endeavour is it not? Putting it into technical terms, anyone can write a bit of code but not everyone can put together a product. Lots of people can fix a problem in a piece of code, and yet a lot fewer of them can fix the fundamental issue.
As with most things in life there is an external view which cannot see the nuances, and an internal view which sees all or most of these challenges.
Trying to evaluate the 'value' of something without internalizing the challenge of providing that something doesn't work.
I think this is really the case...and so we could easily turn this into a discussion over lines-of-code as a misguided metric for judging programmers.
But your comments remind me of Picasso...it's fair to say that some of his work could be physically done by an amateur. But Picasso was prolific at drawing, including realistic figures. One of the best exhibits I've seen showed how he started with drawing realistic objects and then, in later drafts, deconstructing them to the surreal, deceptively simple forms that they eventually take in the final product.
But I think the illusion of parity is especially strong (and deceptive) in photography. Because you can literally know nothing about a camera except how to push the shutter and you can still produce a fantastic photo...whereas with drawing/painting...the physical act of just doing them is a barrier, nevermind actually making something.
Camera software and automated exposure and focus have drastically reduced the technical barrier. As a photographer, I'm both amused and appalled by people who spend two grand on a camera, leave it on "Auto", realize their photos suck, and wonder if they should buy an even more expensive camera.
If you don't have a computer best-guessing exposure for you and you don't understand exposure yourself, you're screwed. If you understand exposure, you don't NEED the computer to make guesses for you. My expensive DSLR is set to manual, so I don't have the computer "guess" the wrong thing.
>> Trying to evaluate the 'value' of something without internalizing the challenge of providing that something doesn't work.
Few people ask a web developer "what kind of computer did you use to make that site?" whereas many photographers get asked "what kind of camera did you use to get that shot?" Many people assume the camera does most of the work involved with a great shot.
This is a problem, and frankly, I think the camera makers are contributing to this big time. I get annoyed every time I see a camera commercial on TV where at the end of the commercial, they brag that it was shot with the camera being featured in the ad (I think I've seen Canon and Nikon ads that do this). What isn't visible is all the extra overhead related to the shoot: a director, a writer, one or more camerapeople, expensive lighting and sound gear, assistants, editors, etc.
Excellent points. (I earned money doing photography in college and had a darkroom).
"shooting a photo with a camera is the fun and easy part"
To which I will add that everyone wants to be the one to wash the suds off the car with the hose.
One of the trueisms about photography that I found when I did it was that there were so many cases of where you thought you shot and developed the perfect photo, and all anyone cared about (imagine this!) is what they looked like in the photo. So to your point there is actually much involved in satisfying the various stakeholders.
Unemployment doesn't cover all of their living expenses? My first project manager at HP went into photography several years ago...and so did many of the other displaced workers during post-2008.
I'm not a fan of these "photographer justifying their costs of business to amateur models" rants.
Like any profession you have the cost of doing business and the prices that you set. If someone can't afford your prices then you simply don't take them on as a client. If your work can't bring in clients at the price you feel is fair, the you should re-think you prices, approach to work, marketing to attract the clients that can pay, or find a new profession.
This is not a rant. Also I think it is informative. Sometimes the public needs education - after all there was the situation with gaming PCs in the early 2000s - you had to explain to the people while if they want quality you cannot drop before a certain threshold.
The public doesn't need to be educated because the public rarely hires professional fashion photographers. A professional fashion photographer should be making their money from brands and modeling agencies.
The problem is that many photographers do vanity work for amateur models who for many reasons (age, location etc...) will never make a career as a professional model. Professional models don't pay for their own photo shoots. They're working enough contracts to not have to fill their portfolio with spec work, or are represented by an agency who will cover the costs of a shoot.
Many photographers who shoot fashion style portraits and make a bit of money doing it, consider themselves professional fashion photographers and expect to be paid as one. The problem is that they'll never command the same prices by doing portfolio work as they would doing work in the industry for brands.
The problem is with the phrase "so much". I actually don't think the average photographer charges much at all.
The problem is really with the customer's perception of the value of a professional's time and the work that they do.
It doesn't help when Canon produces ads for an entry level DSLR that ends with the bold statement "This ad was shot with this camera!". It ignores the fact that the ad was likely shot by an expensive professional with additional expensive lighting equipment and a staff of assistants. When a customer starts to think "All I need is a nice camera, and I can do that too!", you've got an uphill battle when it comes to educating customers about the value of a professional.
On HN, I'd bet that many of us have probably encountered people who have read or seen books with titles like "Learn HTML in 2 hours" or "Learn iOS programming in 7 days" and think that spectacular apps and sites can be created with little to no effort.
"The problem is really with the customer's perception of the value of a professional's time and the work that they do."
Actually I think it's the opposite. It has to do with the photographer's overvalued opinion of their work. How many family budgets can justify $500 for a set of family portraits? How may budgets can justify $1500 for a set of family portraits?
There are a lot more Hampton Inns than Ritz Carltons for a reason. Every photographer thinks they are the Ritz Carlton.
>> How many family budgets can justify $500 for a set of family portraits? How may budgets can justify $1500 for a set of family portraits?
Not many, I guess, but the reality is that $500 will buy you an "average" photographer (i.e., a Hampton Inn). The really good ones cost way more than that.
I would argue that having a professional portrait is a bit of a "luxury" purchase. If you don't want to pay $500 for a set of family portraits, then you can always find someone you know with a camera to take a photo of your family for free.
Weddings only happen once. I can come give you a free second shoot of your baby pictures if I totally bomb the first one. The risk in shooting a wedding is much higher.
This can't be over stressed. I've a friend who used to work as a shooter for several photographers. A good photographer won't let a freelancer anywhere near a wedding utill they've proved themselves on less critical jobs. The stress is unbelievable and the liability is enormous, both in dollar terms and in reputation.
Well, that, and that a few grand blends right in to a wedding budget, compared to the food and venue and band and dress and flowers. A wedding photographer would be dumb to undercharge.
No kidding. The "family environmental portrait" photographer we've been using the last few years charges $275 for a 1.5hr session (including a CD of all the "keeper" files) and even if we only get 10 decent shots I consider it a worthwhile investment. Sometimes we get 40-50 and I'm elated! The fact is, even if I can shoot decently myself, I can't shoot myself decently and if I want to actually be in photos with my kids & wife I need to pay someone for the work. The lighting, posing & post-processing is where the big bucks are, for sure.
My wife and I recently had a professional photographer come out to take photos of our newborn and it was quite frustrating. Apparently it is common for photographers to not give you your digital copies after the shoot. We _can_ however purchase separately a digital copy for an individual photo at $25 a piece. Want an 8x10? $50. Want to post the entire session to Facebook for your family to see? n*$25. I asked what she normally earns from prints on average from a shoot and offered to just pay that for the digital copies, but she wasn't up for it. Also, how long does she have to keep my photos to allow me to order more prints? 3 months? 6 months? What if I want a print a year from now? What if she goes out of business next week?
So for me, charge what ever you want to charge for the session, but for goodness sakes, give people their photos. That is what they are paying you for.
The takeaway from that story - argue before that about this being work for hire with all IP transferred to you with some kind of non commercial licence for the photographer.
No, it's not, if you RTFA you would see that you're paying for their time and talent. The photographer still holds the copyright to those photos because they took them. Some photographers will be happy to license or even sell the rights but that's going to be a significant extra charge. It's the difference between buying a print of the Mona Lisa and buying the Mona Lisa. That digital file is their negative and you could very easily take that into Photoshop, make it look like it was painted by a clown and then put it up on your website with the photographer credit. You can do that if you want but you're going to pay for the privilege.
The default case, yes. Here we are arguing of what the correct way of doing things should be. It is widely accepted in programming contracts to transfer the copyright to the client and in photography contracts it is otherwise.
bradly's case, like darkarmani pointed out is a communication issue. His wife assumed that since she is paying for the shoot she would own the resultant work. The photographer probably though otherwise and had a contract to back this up. For a contract to be considered legal there must be a "meeting of the minds" and clearly it didn't happen here. I blame the photographer here, because they usually have their own contract templates that they know well. They should correct any asymmetric of information that may result. Having the client hire a lawyer to examine the photo contract would be more expensive than hiring a photographer in the first place.
TL;DR If photographers don't want lawyers fees cutting into their service fees, they should be upfront about what they are peddling.
My employer pays for my time and talent. Freelancing programmers are paid for their time and talent. I, however, assign copyright over my works to my employer, because that's part of the terms of my employment. If photographers want to extort $25 for a .jpg, that's fine, but let's not pretend it's anything more.
I'd rather buy my own camera and learn to take photos properly than pay $25 per digital copy, it would be more fun.
Contract, for-hire photographers aren't employees. Freelance programmers give up their copyright willingly. Just because you negotiated badly doesn't mean photographers have to as well.
Go buy your own camera and learn to take photos properly! I would encourage everyone to do that. The exact moment that you grasp mastery of photography will be the day that you understand why photographers don't give up their copyright or hand over digital files to you.
> Freelance programmers give up their copyright willingly.
No, they give them up because that's _the entire point of hiring a freelancer_. It sounds absurd to pay someone to create something but not actually get that thing for yourself. That's what the money is in exchange for.
>> I'd rather buy my own camera and learn to take photos properly than pay $25 per digital copy, it would be more fun.
Taking photos for yourself is always fun.
Taking photos for other people for money is not nearly as fun as you think it is, especially if your customers don't respect what you do and think that they could do your job by buying a camera.
I'm not a pro photographer, but I've definitely had my share of customers who'd constantly complain about how much we were charging them because they thought that by reading a manual, they could do what we do.
Why is it OK? Because most people agree to it when they sign the contract.
You can have a contract where they pass the copyright over to you, but most photographers wouldn't sign that contract without raising the price significantly.
aleyan, If you hire a programmer to do some work for you, that programmer will own the copyright to what he/she wrote. That is why it is a good idea to stipulate in a contract that the work will be done as "work for hire" so you own the copyright. The default is the writer owns the copyright.
you could very easily take that into Photoshop, make it look like it was painted by a clown and then put it up on your website with the photographer credit
I don't see how this matters. If you wanted to lie and discredit the photographer, you could just take your own photo, do the same exact thing, and claim the photographer took it.
I do understand the economic incentive for the photographer to keep the digital copies, of course.
I didn't mean that it would be a malicious act. People have varying degrees of taste about photography. I might think a picture looks great the way I photoshopped it because it's my nephew and my monitor is calibrated incorrectly. Someone else might see it and think that there are dodge halos everywhere and all detail in the skin is lost because they tried to remove blemishes but instead removed all detail.
They might think they've done a nice thing but they haven't. I've also seen wedding pictures show up in newspaper ads because it was the best picture that the person had of themselves.
Hoomans don't understand or respect copyright, in general. When it's a big corporation it's one thing. When it's a guy/gal carrying forty pounds of gear around in their 15 year old car trying to make your memories last forever when they've got 1/500th of a second to get it right for ~$40/hr the copyright belongs to them. People should understand it.
The photographer still holds the copyright to those photos because they took them.
That's only by custom. Legally the photographer holds the copyright as soon as they take the photo, but they could just as easily assign full copyright to the person hiring them as a matter of course.
Most photos of people at weddings, family portraits, etc have little commercial value, except to the people who are in the photos. So you can see how this feels like double/triple/n-times charging, as it has suddenly become a monopoly backed by federal copyright law.
It's even more confusing. The photographer does indeed hold the copyright, unless assigned to someone else. However, the subject has the right to say how their likeness is used. For any commercial usage the photographer must assign rights and the model must sign a model release.
As someone who had a wedding photography business, my standard contract had a "client agrees to allow photographer to use client's likeness for promotion of photographer's business."* clause.
I'd go over the contract term-by-term with a client before they signed, and I never had anyone request to cross it out.
> That digital file is their negative and you could very easily take that into Photoshop, make it look like it was painted by a clown and then put it up on your website with the photographer credit. You can do that if you want but you're going to pay for the privilege.
This is inane. What photographer would give you the priviledge of publicly showing "defaced" work as theirs? Can't you do this anyway be mis-attributing?
When I got married and we hired a photographer to document the event, we had to stipulate ahead of time, when we were interviewing prospective photographers, that we wanted the digital copies included. Several balked, one offered to provide a DVD with the images for 3x the price and one offered the DVD as an included service. Guess which one we picked? In the end the photos were great and we got over several hundred digital copies of all photographs taken.
> So for me, charge what ever you want to charge for the session, but for goodness sakes, give people their photos. That is what they are paying you for.
Absolutely! This is a communication issue. There would be no confusion if every single photographer / studio spelled this out explicitly to you before hand. The reason they don't spell it out explicitly is that once they take the photos, you have no choice but to pay them for the photos. After you are burned by this, you realize it is always this bait and switch.
Every single person in the universe is hiring people to take pictures so they can have the pictures. They don't hire photographers, so the photographers can build up a library of prints to sell back to them.
That being said, I negotiated heavily with my wedding photographer for the rights to my photos. This was an incredibly hard process and I almost dumped my expensive photographer. It wasn't the money issue, but they could not grok giving up or sharing the copyright (sublicensing). Eventually, they gave me a full sub-license, with equivalent full rights after 5 years (i could do anything except sell them for a profit until 5 years later). As if i wanted to try and make professional quality prints to sell to all of my guests.
My argument was that those images are priceless to me -- even in 30 years, but they might move on in 30 years or lose the images. Without an ability to reprint them, I would be limited to decaying physical prints.
This is insanity to anyone but a photographer. I wonder how often it is that a photographer loses out on the proverbial jackpot when a customer resells their images.
It's easy to prevent attribution in the sub-license. But I've never heard of this as a fear for consumer level photography. Who wants to share photos of their kids with a big attribution to the photographer?
Say you shoot portraits of a family and give them the originals. They do a lousy crop of the kids, chopping off the parents' heads and send that out to their friends/family saying that they got the pictures done at Smith & Sons and look at the kids!
Some people will look at that picture and say "Wow, Smith & Sons did an absolutely terrible job, why would they cut off the parents' heads?"
I was frustrated by a similar studio who took my family's shots. They tease you with 50 great photos and your budget dictates that you need to entirely discard 40 of them.
It's not like they were doing individual editing of the shots. They had some pre-made filters set up which we could choose to apply to the photos of our liking.
As a photographer, I wasn't particularly impressed with the digital files I received. They didn't seem to be as high quality as the camera they were using should be producing. And the sharpening/NR wasn't custom to the pictures.
So whenever I do shoots for people, I sit them down mid-shoot to see what the shots look like, and maybe even attempt to fully edit their favorite shot on the spot to show them the expertise that I put into the post-processing. I let them rate all the photos themselves so that I know what they like, and then I give them exactly what they asked for.
Apparently it is common for photographers to not give you your digital copies after the shoot.
It's common, but not the only option. There are plenty of skilled photographers who will just charge you for the time spent on the shoot and hand over the digital copies. You just need to search them out and realize that you may or may not get the same caliber of artist as one who can dictate their own terms.
You're paying for whatever was agreed upon. This is an industry standard but if the pricing structure wasn't clear beforehand then that was the photographer's fault.
When I got married I put an ad on Craigslist seeking a photographer willing to do "work for hire" so that I would have the copyright. This is how photographers hire other photographers (e.g. for multi photographer shoots). I got many more responses along the lines of "how dare you ask for work-for-hire" than actual offers.
I had to spell out explicitly to the photographer that I hired that only I would own the copyrights to the photos and they she could not use them on her website, etc.
This was a few years ago. I think it's more common today for people to include the digital copies in the price or sell them to you for an additional fee.
> We _can_ however purchase separately a digital copy for an individual photo at $25 a piece
I'd be willing to bet that just about every professional photographer retouches each photograph in some way before printing or otherwise delivering them to the client.
Retouching takes time. If they gave away digital copies before retouching that work wouldn't be up to their standards and their reputation—and ability to gain new clients—could be harmed.
EDIT: Changed my mind. What I wrote below is not the argument the OP was making and your criticism stands...
Though, if the photographer holds copyright they can still charge per digital copy (per use?) of the same photo.
---
You're missing the point. Unless they retouch the photo before every subsequent digital "reprint", there's no reason to charge per digital copy of the same photo.
The OP is saying "charge what you're going to charge, but don't keep charging for each subsequent copy".
Thats the "old-school" way. to keep the "negatives" and charge for prints. They keep them on file forever. (I used to assist a wedding photographer).
Negotiate for digital copies of the images ahead of time, and for rights to the photos. That way the images are yours. Some photographers aren't going to like it but its the way the market is going.
Some labs wouldn't print photos that look "pro" but this is less of a problem now.
This sounds like an old school photographer. That's the how the model used to work, especially wedding photographers.
Being a professional glamour photographer (www.topmodelphotography.com) I can say that is not how all photographers work. I always give all the RAW photos immediately after the shoot.
Some photographers want to pick out the good ones, retouch them, and only give those out. This ensures that there is nothing out there that would reflect badly upon them. Personally, I'm not as concerned with this and I'd rather have less friction with clients.
It's interesting to see a bunch of people defending broken defaults in this subthread. I see this as no different than an app that uploads or spams your entire address book with a tiny opt-out checkbox. Why should every single person have to get burned and learn their lesson to negotiate better next time?
I worked for a professional photographer. Customers don't pay professional photographers to take photos, they pay them to take good photos. The end photos which go to customers are edited to look as good as possible, which is why the customer is charged per shot. Even a professional does not take perfect pictures every shot. Giving a customer a CD with all the outtakes simply doesn't reflect well on the photographer's talent, since he is not paid enough to ensure they are all high quality.
For those of us paying for photos of babies, kids, or annual family pictures, we frequently are less interested in getting One Awesome Photo, (or three), but rather in documenting a shared time together. Yes, I'd like to have the good copies: spend your time on those. But I'd also like the outtakes where my son is picking his nose, or my daughter is trying to peel my eyelids off. I don't want to have them hanging on my wall, but which do you think I and my grandkids will want to see in sixty years?
I care about the talent of the photographer, because I'd like one or two good photos, but we recommend her to our friends due to her behavior, accomodation of two unruly and not-always-cooperative kids, as well as her ability to find the good shots.
We don't expect perfect pictures. Our facebook friends will not know who the photographer is, and live across the country anyway, so there's no risk of them ever being a customer of hers even if they did know. We don't plan to sell them, etc.
The answer, of course, is to find a photographer who is willing to negotiate a good price on the service of taking excellent pictures as well as on access to the data.
Those are not outtakes. Outtakes are bad exposure, hand obscuring the lens, ghosting, etc. Objectively bad work. It's more like why you wouldn't want to give up all the functions you ended up throwing out when doing a development gig.
I do think that not giving the majority of the acceptable files is silly though. Most photographers often seem to greatly overvalue their work. Not that good ones don't exist, but craigslist is overwhelmed with talentless photogs who overspent on gear and put obnoxious watermarks on everything.
I remember an article that was posted here a few months back where a photographer complained about this exact same thing. That people did not want to pay for high quality images done by a professional. He was criticized for not "getting with the times", that anyone can take a picture so he better drop his prices!
I guess this article is written much better and has hard numbers to describe how little most photographers are making. But I wonder if the developers who complain about people lowballing them for their knowledge/experience are the same ones who tell photographers that they need to charge lower prices.
I think the problem with Photography is the democratization of the form.
If you hand an unskilled photographer a good camera, they could accidentally shoot a few damn fine photos, where as with paints, you almost guaranteed you will not accidentally paint a great painting, or as a developer, accidentally code a great project. This cheapens photography as an art form.
Having dealt with many clients with poor photography, I will say, not enough people are willing to shell out for good photography and good digital dark room skills.
My only pet peeve is with the photographers who still think it makes sense to price by the print.
Please just set a price for your services and then give me the files. Printing used to be a value-added activity. It's not anymore, unless you're doing something unusual.
I've dabbled in professional photography a bit. I can tell you, you don't get rich as a photographer. To become a really good professional photographer you have to put about 5-10 years into it. There are a lot of cost, from equipments to other things. Not to mention the basic cost of doing a business. Answering 10 clients to just get one. Commuting, transportations, etc.
There is a lot of cost in post-production. I occasionally shoot weddings. And I spend 3-4X as much time in post as the hours I spent shooting a wedding. So if you're charging $200/hr. You really making $40/hr. This is not does include commute cost, equipment wear and tear or rentals.
The best gig I've ever gotten was for a client who flew me to Lake Como, Italy for a week. But you had to envy the view while you were shooting all day :)
The entire industry has been overtaken by technology somewhat, but the pricing hasn't caught up. A serious professional with professional gear? He can charge what he wants. But for most of the semi-pro weekend-warriors? They're going to find constant downward price-pressure because it's not the '80s anymore and the quality of their work isn't really that much higher than a layman with $500 of equipment, at least outdoors.
People put up with it because of historical inertia, but it's not going to get any better for most photogs.
Personally, I will only have family photos done with photographers that offer a DVD with images as part of the package. That is my opinion and how I choose to spend my money. There are photographers that offer DVDs, so obviously there is a market for it. And those who are good photographers and business people will find a way to be successful in that market.
My problem is not necessarily with the price, but the way prices are structured. People balk at paying $25 per print because they know it's a ridiculous price for a print. Even the highest end online printers are in the $2-3 range for 8x10. But we as consumers also know that you can get very good quality 8x10 prints for half that. So they rightfully question why they are paying $25 for something they know costs the producer 1/10th the price. In a world of $1 apps, $25 prints are bound to get some push back.
I understand the photographer needs to make money, so don't whine about all of the burdensome costs. Give me a bottom line and let me decide if you are worth it or not.
Last comment ... if the photographer is complaining about time spent retouching and post-processing, then they need to either improve their photoshop skills or improve their photo skills. If it's your job, you'd better get shots right out of the camera that need very little editing or touch ups.
Most minor professions from house builder to car salesman have a little bit of institutionalized dishonesty built in to them. This has creeped in by increments over a long time and so doesn't strike the practitioners of these professions as dishonest at all because "that's the way it's always been done."
People with a fresh perspective will compare it with other, less "storied" professions and it will feel (perhaps rightly so) like a scam.
Do some research and negotiate up front. If you make an unexpected demand at the end thats quite different than the usual, you'll make the photographer feel as if they are the one who's being scammed. If they know up front that this shoot is going to be different than "the norm", they will often be surprisingly willing to think differently.
Something those who think "work for hire" and "you should own the IP" don't seem to understand... a huge part of being a good photographer is being a good EDITOR, and learning to keep only the very best images. I'm not a "professional" in the full time sense, but I've released professional work. My "keep rate" is 2-3%. I'm simply rejecting 49 out of every 50 photos I take. I do not EVER want ANYONE to see those other 49. Many are just plain bad, and even the good ones aren't good enough for my critical standards.
Because of this, I would not under any circumstances sign a work-for-hire contract as a photographer. No good photographer I know would do that.
Something else to consider... for many photographers, the editing process is inseparable from the photo. The in-camera raw image is only an intermediate step. I don't know how many times I've been asked for a complete set of raw images by models or performers (I mostly shoot dance performance), and they've reacted with surprise to my flat NO answer. I'm not willing to let someone else make aesthetic decisions on my raw images, except perhaps in cases where I consider the person an artistic peer and treat it as a co-project.
Sports journalists don't have to worry about some bridezilla taking their images, soft-filtering them and adding glowing pink hearts, and publishing every single one, no matter how awful. Their work-for-hire is going to professional editors. This is a VERY important distinction.
Actually, it's not a distinction at all, because the fear is unwarranted. There is no realistic impact that such a bridezilla can have on a photographer.
No, there's coupling involved. Every paying job I've ever gotten as a photographer, I've gotten due to my artistic qualities. This isn't universal, but it's common. So releasing work that undermines my artistic integrity also undermines my commercial appeal.
Besides, art is WHY many of us take up photography! When you just whore out your work for money, it's demoralizing. You think less of yourself as an artist, and as a person.
I'm not denying that such an image could possibly besmirch the name of a photographer, I'm just denying that it could have such the reach that it would require such destructive terms as exclusive copyright. It's the same sort of classic conflation and/or misunderstandings of impact and likelihood that plagues security audits.
And it's only demoralizing if you subscribe to the notion that "art" is more important than "work" or that "work" is less important than "art". These are largely conceits that are forced on us by our culture, so you'd basically be letting other people's values make you a depressed mess.
This reminds me a bit of the article posted yesterday about lowering margins on website development.
We are living in an economy where technology is enabling a variety of self-service options to professional services.
These self service options are often dramatically cheaper than retaining a person with professional experience. For example paying $10 for a site building application vs $1000 to hire a web designer.
The answer of course is to sell the benefits of professional skill to your client. The trouble of course is that often clients themselves have terrible taste and are bad at distinguishing good work from bad. The website they built with yellow text on pink background may "look amazing!" to them so the difficult part is making the case to them that many of their customers will be put off by this in a way that may cost them sales.
This is an industry ripe for disruption. I took a half assed shot at it last year (still online but left for dead) with shutterhire.com
My basic concept was that at some price photographers would give away all the digitals, customers should be able to "use" them (but not sell them) as they wished, and that people should choose photographers almost exclusively on the quality of their work. The business would be a marketplace fee for arranging the transaction.
I ultimately gave up due to personal priorities (children / day job) and a complicated legal mountain to climb (who owns copyright? Do you force everyone into a contract?).
If anyone wants to pick it up I'd be happy to share the code.
The thinly veiled condescension of professional photographers like this is why I eventually got out of the business.
It never upset me that the models didn't understand the business or that I had to explain what was going on. Of course they don't know what are common contract terms for photographers, they aren't doing the photographer's job and they've never done the photographer's job.
It's no different in software contracting. Of course my clients don't have a flipping clue what it takes to make software; that's the entire point of them hiring me.
And keeping exclusive copyright--while I know is completely common--is straight up ridiculous. Sure, if you're David LaChapelle, you probably will be making money off of the images themselves at some point, rather than just the session fee. Of course, if you're David LaChapelle, you're also not taking gigs from the subject of the pictures, you're getting hired by magazines who are also hiring the models for you, and the magazine will demand the copyright.
But the vast majority of your garden variety wedding photographers and "Glamor ShotZ!" photographers aren't going to do jack with the photos. Who the hell is going to want to buy photos of YOUR wedding other than YOU? At most, they're going to stick them in their portfolio and use them as advertising. The exclusive copyright of those images is so completely valueless that the only reason the photographer could possibly want them is to gouge the customer for prints. It's disingenuous rent-seeking.
I'm a part-time photographer and I shoot portraits frequently. I learned pretty early on that it's almost impossible to make a living at. But, I really enjoy the creative outlet and it gets me away from coding all day.
At first, I charged a low per-session fee and tried to make money selling prints and digital rights on a per-image basis. But really, I don't like that model at all (neither did my customers) so now I charge a higher session fee and personal use rights to the images are included, in full resolution.
Most people don't realize how much time is spent in post-production. I spend hours re-touching. Not to mention, the time it takes to learn things like off-camera lighting and the cost of the gear associated. But, I'm not complaining, it's fun to learn.
I don't really profit from photography but it does cover some of the cost of my gear and it's just plain fun to do. Trying to make a living with photography would be extremely difficult, but clearly some people are able to pull it off.
A client is paying for studio time, digital copies (specified in consultation), and the desired outcome for images.
The photographer is paying for studio rental, time spent post processing, the CD/thumb drive for digital copies. The rest is divided into varying percentages for employee salaries, rent, food, and miscellaneous but necessary costs such as gas, medical/business/car insurance, clothing and entertainment. Don't forget, Uncle Sam wants a cut so a photographer must set aside money from each session and every sale for taxes every year.
Printed copies may appear outrageously expensive but, the photographer has to purchase the paper, ink and maintain the machine. They may send out images to be printed and have to pay for such services.
Photographers most often want to print their own images to ensure proper color/saturation handling - this speaks much about the quality of the image. Printable copies may be made available to the client and the photographer stands to lose much on the little profit they gain from prints when the client takes home high res images; this will show in a larger outright cost for the CD with printable images.
The photographer will(should) state how long they will retain a copy of the images in their records so you may return for more prints within that specified time limit, or purchase the printable images when you are able to do so.
106 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadWhat I find interesting though, this question rarely comes up with manual labor, or any kind of job that's considered "dirty" or physically hard. Nobody questions their plumber's bill, for example.
With purely "intellectual" or creative jobs though, a true professional makes things look easy. Which inevitably leads to "but it only took you 15 minutes to fix my computer!".
Creatives have it even worse.
Photography as a profession is currently bifurcated: there are a smallish number of high-end shooters (of whom it sounds like Bickley is one) and a very large number of Guys With Cameras (GWCs) on Craigslist, Model Mayhem, and elsewhere. The temptation is obvious: photography is fun, it's possible to product decent images with cheap gear these days, and a lot of people want to give professional shooting a go.
But the reality is a lot harder:
Let's say you want to make a living as a full-time photographer, and let's set a reasonable middle-class lifestyle at $45,000 a year (your number may be higher or lower). If you're trying to bill at $50, your take-home is probably closer to $25 an hour. To make $45,000, you'll have to bill at least 1,800 hours per year, or 35 hours per week, 52 weeks a year, paid. Adjust those numbers accordingly for vacations, illnesses, etc. (you don't get two weeks of paid vacation as an independent contractor).
Yet a lot of people are comparing real professions with GWCs who just got a D7000 and will shoot for $75 to "get experience." There is a demographically infinite number of these guys. So when average people see how much real professionals cost, they blanch, because they're often comparing pros to GWCs. Some GWCs can be reasonably good. Almost everyone charging over $100 an hour is really good. But there's little middle ground anymore.
One other note: Bickley might be shooting with an $8000 D4 or 1D-X, but by now many of their predecessors can be bought for $1000 – $2000. The OMFG AMAZING cameras of 2008 (Nikon D700, Canon 5D II, Sony's FF camera the name of which escapes me) that lots of pros shot with are $1000 - 1500, and for most purposes at base ISO they're still awesome and overkill. There are still reasons to buy $8000 in gear, but it's possible to produce equivalent work in many situations with much less.
edit: Also, the first $8000 camera one buys is absurdly expensive, but when a new model appears most people sell their old one and use the proceeds to buy the new one, while using the cost of the new one as a tax write-off. Almost no one buys a new $8000 camera from scratch every year.
Photography is a profession for those who either "picked their parents well" or can't stand not to do it, i.e. your life's passion.
Very true. I would bet that many budding wedding photographers will realize that they're in over their heads the first time they deal with a bridezilla, mob or mog (mother of bride/groom) on the day of the shoot.
Being a pro photographer requires you to be really good with people, especially the bad ones. It's not just enough to be good with a camera.
I've loved photography for my entire life, but I don't envy the people who shoot weddings for a living.
The "valuable skills" of a true professional photographer are only valuable if there is demand for it.
In my experience, shooting the photo is the easiest part. Being "there", as in, the right place to shoot the photo, is even more critical. Is your child getting married? Do you really want to experience their wedding vows with a 10-pound camera held in front of your face?
If your photoshoot is non-documentary...i.e. you want to photog to help create a scene...well, now you're not paying for just a photographer, but a creative director.
And of course, a good camera is just a part...sometimes a very small part, of a good photo. Lighting equipment matters much more...and while you may have a great $1000 prosumer camera, you probably don't have $1000 to $10000 in lighting equipment (or the assistants needed to operate it).
And finally, the least fun part of all: editing and organizing the photos. I've heard that editing video takes about 10 hours per minute of usable video...the ratio isn't as drastic for photography, but even photogs with a good workflow (such as a Lightroom setup), can spend hours editing down to the best dozen photos out of a thousand.
To reiterate the point: shooting a photo with a camera is the fun and easy part. The rest of what it takes to make a great photo is what you're paying the big money for.
As with most things in life there is an external view which cannot see the nuances, and an internal view which sees all or most of these challenges.
Trying to evaluate the 'value' of something without internalizing the challenge of providing that something doesn't work.
But your comments remind me of Picasso...it's fair to say that some of his work could be physically done by an amateur. But Picasso was prolific at drawing, including realistic figures. One of the best exhibits I've seen showed how he started with drawing realistic objects and then, in later drafts, deconstructing them to the surreal, deceptively simple forms that they eventually take in the final product.
But I think the illusion of parity is especially strong (and deceptive) in photography. Because you can literally know nothing about a camera except how to push the shutter and you can still produce a fantastic photo...whereas with drawing/painting...the physical act of just doing them is a barrier, nevermind actually making something.
If you don't have a computer best-guessing exposure for you and you don't understand exposure yourself, you're screwed. If you understand exposure, you don't NEED the computer to make guesses for you. My expensive DSLR is set to manual, so I don't have the computer "guess" the wrong thing.
Few people ask a web developer "what kind of computer did you use to make that site?" whereas many photographers get asked "what kind of camera did you use to get that shot?" Many people assume the camera does most of the work involved with a great shot.
This is a problem, and frankly, I think the camera makers are contributing to this big time. I get annoyed every time I see a camera commercial on TV where at the end of the commercial, they brag that it was shot with the camera being featured in the ad (I think I've seen Canon and Nikon ads that do this). What isn't visible is all the extra overhead related to the shoot: a director, a writer, one or more camerapeople, expensive lighting and sound gear, assistants, editors, etc.
"shooting a photo with a camera is the fun and easy part"
To which I will add that everyone wants to be the one to wash the suds off the car with the hose.
One of the trueisms about photography that I found when I did it was that there were so many cases of where you thought you shot and developed the perfect photo, and all anyone cared about (imagine this!) is what they looked like in the photo. So to your point there is actually much involved in satisfying the various stakeholders.
Like any profession you have the cost of doing business and the prices that you set. If someone can't afford your prices then you simply don't take them on as a client. If your work can't bring in clients at the price you feel is fair, the you should re-think you prices, approach to work, marketing to attract the clients that can pay, or find a new profession.
The problem is that many photographers do vanity work for amateur models who for many reasons (age, location etc...) will never make a career as a professional model. Professional models don't pay for their own photo shoots. They're working enough contracts to not have to fill their portfolio with spec work, or are represented by an agency who will cover the costs of a shoot.
Many photographers who shoot fashion style portraits and make a bit of money doing it, consider themselves professional fashion photographers and expect to be paid as one. The problem is that they'll never command the same prices by doing portfolio work as they would doing work in the industry for brands.
The problem is really with the customer's perception of the value of a professional's time and the work that they do.
It doesn't help when Canon produces ads for an entry level DSLR that ends with the bold statement "This ad was shot with this camera!". It ignores the fact that the ad was likely shot by an expensive professional with additional expensive lighting equipment and a staff of assistants. When a customer starts to think "All I need is a nice camera, and I can do that too!", you've got an uphill battle when it comes to educating customers about the value of a professional.
On HN, I'd bet that many of us have probably encountered people who have read or seen books with titles like "Learn HTML in 2 hours" or "Learn iOS programming in 7 days" and think that spectacular apps and sites can be created with little to no effort.
Actually I think it's the opposite. It has to do with the photographer's overvalued opinion of their work. How many family budgets can justify $500 for a set of family portraits? How may budgets can justify $1500 for a set of family portraits?
There are a lot more Hampton Inns than Ritz Carltons for a reason. Every photographer thinks they are the Ritz Carlton.
Not many, I guess, but the reality is that $500 will buy you an "average" photographer (i.e., a Hampton Inn). The really good ones cost way more than that.
I would argue that having a professional portrait is a bit of a "luxury" purchase. If you don't want to pay $500 for a set of family portraits, then you can always find someone you know with a camera to take a photo of your family for free.
So for me, charge what ever you want to charge for the session, but for goodness sakes, give people their photos. That is what they are paying you for.
bradly's case, like darkarmani pointed out is a communication issue. His wife assumed that since she is paying for the shoot she would own the resultant work. The photographer probably though otherwise and had a contract to back this up. For a contract to be considered legal there must be a "meeting of the minds" and clearly it didn't happen here. I blame the photographer here, because they usually have their own contract templates that they know well. They should correct any asymmetric of information that may result. Having the client hire a lawyer to examine the photo contract would be more expensive than hiring a photographer in the first place.
TL;DR If photographers don't want lawyers fees cutting into their service fees, they should be upfront about what they are peddling.
Which I believe is what the parent was asking about.
I'd rather buy my own camera and learn to take photos properly than pay $25 per digital copy, it would be more fun.
Go buy your own camera and learn to take photos properly! I would encourage everyone to do that. The exact moment that you grasp mastery of photography will be the day that you understand why photographers don't give up their copyright or hand over digital files to you.
No, they give them up because that's _the entire point of hiring a freelancer_. It sounds absurd to pay someone to create something but not actually get that thing for yourself. That's what the money is in exchange for.
Not really. My clients are paying for results, and part of those results include a license to use the code I write forever.
But I never give up the copyright. I frequently re-use techniques, libraries, modules, etc across clients, and in fact would be stupid not to.
Taking photos for yourself is always fun.
Taking photos for other people for money is not nearly as fun as you think it is, especially if your customers don't respect what you do and think that they could do your job by buying a camera.
I'm not a pro photographer, but I've definitely had my share of customers who'd constantly complain about how much we were charging them because they thought that by reading a manual, they could do what we do.
You can have a contract where they pass the copyright over to you, but most photographers wouldn't sign that contract without raising the price significantly.
I don't see how this matters. If you wanted to lie and discredit the photographer, you could just take your own photo, do the same exact thing, and claim the photographer took it.
I do understand the economic incentive for the photographer to keep the digital copies, of course.
They might think they've done a nice thing but they haven't. I've also seen wedding pictures show up in newspaper ads because it was the best picture that the person had of themselves.
Hoomans don't understand or respect copyright, in general. When it's a big corporation it's one thing. When it's a guy/gal carrying forty pounds of gear around in their 15 year old car trying to make your memories last forever when they've got 1/500th of a second to get it right for ~$40/hr the copyright belongs to them. People should understand it.
Edited for gender neutrality.
That's only by custom. Legally the photographer holds the copyright as soon as they take the photo, but they could just as easily assign full copyright to the person hiring them as a matter of course.
Most photos of people at weddings, family portraits, etc have little commercial value, except to the people who are in the photos. So you can see how this feels like double/triple/n-times charging, as it has suddenly become a monopoly backed by federal copyright law.
I'd go over the contract term-by-term with a client before they signed, and I never had anyone request to cross it out.
* paraphrasing, of course.
This is inane. What photographer would give you the priviledge of publicly showing "defaced" work as theirs? Can't you do this anyway be mis-attributing?
Absolutely! This is a communication issue. There would be no confusion if every single photographer / studio spelled this out explicitly to you before hand. The reason they don't spell it out explicitly is that once they take the photos, you have no choice but to pay them for the photos. After you are burned by this, you realize it is always this bait and switch.
Every single person in the universe is hiring people to take pictures so they can have the pictures. They don't hire photographers, so the photographers can build up a library of prints to sell back to them.
That being said, I negotiated heavily with my wedding photographer for the rights to my photos. This was an incredibly hard process and I almost dumped my expensive photographer. It wasn't the money issue, but they could not grok giving up or sharing the copyright (sublicensing). Eventually, they gave me a full sub-license, with equivalent full rights after 5 years (i could do anything except sell them for a profit until 5 years later). As if i wanted to try and make professional quality prints to sell to all of my guests.
My argument was that those images are priceless to me -- even in 30 years, but they might move on in 30 years or lose the images. Without an ability to reprint them, I would be limited to decaying physical prints.
Just charge for your time and maybe a reasonable amount for digital copies and be done with it.
If you give a customer digital copies and they "retouch" them or crop them and present it as YOUR work, that's a huge frustration.
Say you shoot portraits of a family and give them the originals. They do a lousy crop of the kids, chopping off the parents' heads and send that out to their friends/family saying that they got the pictures done at Smith & Sons and look at the kids!
Some people will look at that picture and say "Wow, Smith & Sons did an absolutely terrible job, why would they cut off the parents' heads?"
That kind of mis-representation.
It's not like they were doing individual editing of the shots. They had some pre-made filters set up which we could choose to apply to the photos of our liking.
As a photographer, I wasn't particularly impressed with the digital files I received. They didn't seem to be as high quality as the camera they were using should be producing. And the sharpening/NR wasn't custom to the pictures.
So whenever I do shoots for people, I sit them down mid-shoot to see what the shots look like, and maybe even attempt to fully edit their favorite shot on the spot to show them the expertise that I put into the post-processing. I let them rate all the photos themselves so that I know what they like, and then I give them exactly what they asked for.
It's common, but not the only option. There are plenty of skilled photographers who will just charge you for the time spent on the shoot and hand over the digital copies. You just need to search them out and realize that you may or may not get the same caliber of artist as one who can dictate their own terms.
I had to spell out explicitly to the photographer that I hired that only I would own the copyrights to the photos and they she could not use them on her website, etc.
This was a few years ago. I think it's more common today for people to include the digital copies in the price or sell them to you for an additional fee.
Edit: HA! Looks like I found one in this very thread! Use that downvote button, bitter dinosaur!
They'll give you the digital copies but not the rights. It might not be a problem until you hit a store that won't make prints for you.
I'd be willing to bet that just about every professional photographer retouches each photograph in some way before printing or otherwise delivering them to the client.
Retouching takes time. If they gave away digital copies before retouching that work wouldn't be up to their standards and their reputation—and ability to gain new clients—could be harmed.
Though, if the photographer holds copyright they can still charge per digital copy (per use?) of the same photo.
---
You're missing the point. Unless they retouch the photo before every subsequent digital "reprint", there's no reason to charge per digital copy of the same photo.
The OP is saying "charge what you're going to charge, but don't keep charging for each subsequent copy".
Some labs wouldn't print photos that look "pro" but this is less of a problem now.
Being a professional glamour photographer (www.topmodelphotography.com) I can say that is not how all photographers work. I always give all the RAW photos immediately after the shoot.
Some photographers want to pick out the good ones, retouch them, and only give those out. This ensures that there is nothing out there that would reflect badly upon them. Personally, I'm not as concerned with this and I'd rather have less friction with clients.
I care about the talent of the photographer, because I'd like one or two good photos, but we recommend her to our friends due to her behavior, accomodation of two unruly and not-always-cooperative kids, as well as her ability to find the good shots.
We don't expect perfect pictures. Our facebook friends will not know who the photographer is, and live across the country anyway, so there's no risk of them ever being a customer of hers even if they did know. We don't plan to sell them, etc.
The answer, of course, is to find a photographer who is willing to negotiate a good price on the service of taking excellent pictures as well as on access to the data.
I do think that not giving the majority of the acceptable files is silly though. Most photographers often seem to greatly overvalue their work. Not that good ones don't exist, but craigslist is overwhelmed with talentless photogs who overspent on gear and put obnoxious watermarks on everything.
I remember an article that was posted here a few months back where a photographer complained about this exact same thing. That people did not want to pay for high quality images done by a professional. He was criticized for not "getting with the times", that anyone can take a picture so he better drop his prices!
I guess this article is written much better and has hard numbers to describe how little most photographers are making. But I wonder if the developers who complain about people lowballing them for their knowledge/experience are the same ones who tell photographers that they need to charge lower prices.
If you hand an unskilled photographer a good camera, they could accidentally shoot a few damn fine photos, where as with paints, you almost guaranteed you will not accidentally paint a great painting, or as a developer, accidentally code a great project. This cheapens photography as an art form.
Having dealt with many clients with poor photography, I will say, not enough people are willing to shell out for good photography and good digital dark room skills.
Please just set a price for your services and then give me the files. Printing used to be a value-added activity. It's not anymore, unless you're doing something unusual.
The best gig I've ever gotten was for a client who flew me to Lake Como, Italy for a week. But you had to envy the view while you were shooting all day :)
People put up with it because of historical inertia, but it's not going to get any better for most photogs.
My problem is not necessarily with the price, but the way prices are structured. People balk at paying $25 per print because they know it's a ridiculous price for a print. Even the highest end online printers are in the $2-3 range for 8x10. But we as consumers also know that you can get very good quality 8x10 prints for half that. So they rightfully question why they are paying $25 for something they know costs the producer 1/10th the price. In a world of $1 apps, $25 prints are bound to get some push back.
I understand the photographer needs to make money, so don't whine about all of the burdensome costs. Give me a bottom line and let me decide if you are worth it or not.
Last comment ... if the photographer is complaining about time spent retouching and post-processing, then they need to either improve their photoshop skills or improve their photo skills. If it's your job, you'd better get shots right out of the camera that need very little editing or touch ups.
So your preferred development environment is cat(1), then?
People with a fresh perspective will compare it with other, less "storied" professions and it will feel (perhaps rightly so) like a scam.
Do some research and negotiate up front. If you make an unexpected demand at the end thats quite different than the usual, you'll make the photographer feel as if they are the one who's being scammed. If they know up front that this shoot is going to be different than "the norm", they will often be surprisingly willing to think differently.
Because of this, I would not under any circumstances sign a work-for-hire contract as a photographer. No good photographer I know would do that.
Something else to consider... for many photographers, the editing process is inseparable from the photo. The in-camera raw image is only an intermediate step. I don't know how many times I've been asked for a complete set of raw images by models or performers (I mostly shoot dance performance), and they've reacted with surprise to my flat NO answer. I'm not willing to let someone else make aesthetic decisions on my raw images, except perhaps in cases where I consider the person an artistic peer and treat it as a co-project.
Besides, art is WHY many of us take up photography! When you just whore out your work for money, it's demoralizing. You think less of yourself as an artist, and as a person.
And it's only demoralizing if you subscribe to the notion that "art" is more important than "work" or that "work" is less important than "art". These are largely conceits that are forced on us by our culture, so you'd basically be letting other people's values make you a depressed mess.
We are living in an economy where technology is enabling a variety of self-service options to professional services.
These self service options are often dramatically cheaper than retaining a person with professional experience. For example paying $10 for a site building application vs $1000 to hire a web designer.
The answer of course is to sell the benefits of professional skill to your client. The trouble of course is that often clients themselves have terrible taste and are bad at distinguishing good work from bad. The website they built with yellow text on pink background may "look amazing!" to them so the difficult part is making the case to them that many of their customers will be put off by this in a way that may cost them sales.
My basic concept was that at some price photographers would give away all the digitals, customers should be able to "use" them (but not sell them) as they wished, and that people should choose photographers almost exclusively on the quality of their work. The business would be a marketplace fee for arranging the transaction.
I ultimately gave up due to personal priorities (children / day job) and a complicated legal mountain to climb (who owns copyright? Do you force everyone into a contract?).
If anyone wants to pick it up I'd be happy to share the code.
It never upset me that the models didn't understand the business or that I had to explain what was going on. Of course they don't know what are common contract terms for photographers, they aren't doing the photographer's job and they've never done the photographer's job.
It's no different in software contracting. Of course my clients don't have a flipping clue what it takes to make software; that's the entire point of them hiring me.
And keeping exclusive copyright--while I know is completely common--is straight up ridiculous. Sure, if you're David LaChapelle, you probably will be making money off of the images themselves at some point, rather than just the session fee. Of course, if you're David LaChapelle, you're also not taking gigs from the subject of the pictures, you're getting hired by magazines who are also hiring the models for you, and the magazine will demand the copyright.
But the vast majority of your garden variety wedding photographers and "Glamor ShotZ!" photographers aren't going to do jack with the photos. Who the hell is going to want to buy photos of YOUR wedding other than YOU? At most, they're going to stick them in their portfolio and use them as advertising. The exclusive copyright of those images is so completely valueless that the only reason the photographer could possibly want them is to gouge the customer for prints. It's disingenuous rent-seeking.
At first, I charged a low per-session fee and tried to make money selling prints and digital rights on a per-image basis. But really, I don't like that model at all (neither did my customers) so now I charge a higher session fee and personal use rights to the images are included, in full resolution.
Most people don't realize how much time is spent in post-production. I spend hours re-touching. Not to mention, the time it takes to learn things like off-camera lighting and the cost of the gear associated. But, I'm not complaining, it's fun to learn.
I don't really profit from photography but it does cover some of the cost of my gear and it's just plain fun to do. Trying to make a living with photography would be extremely difficult, but clearly some people are able to pull it off.
The photographer is paying for studio rental, time spent post processing, the CD/thumb drive for digital copies. The rest is divided into varying percentages for employee salaries, rent, food, and miscellaneous but necessary costs such as gas, medical/business/car insurance, clothing and entertainment. Don't forget, Uncle Sam wants a cut so a photographer must set aside money from each session and every sale for taxes every year.
Printed copies may appear outrageously expensive but, the photographer has to purchase the paper, ink and maintain the machine. They may send out images to be printed and have to pay for such services.
Photographers most often want to print their own images to ensure proper color/saturation handling - this speaks much about the quality of the image. Printable copies may be made available to the client and the photographer stands to lose much on the little profit they gain from prints when the client takes home high res images; this will show in a larger outright cost for the CD with printable images. The photographer will(should) state how long they will retain a copy of the images in their records so you may return for more prints within that specified time limit, or purchase the printable images when you are able to do so.