The whole entire point was why do people price themselves out of a digital download sale. Is it to sell prints only? That's what I was trying to find out. It had nothing to do with ethics or recouping expenses..... since that doesn't happen on their downloads because no one buys them. They are forced to buy prints only or use low res watermarked images.
They probably do not want to sell digital files and therefore price it accordingly. No big mystery. As far as being "forced" to use low res watermarked images does the photographer provide low res watermarked files for free or are they illegally lifted from the site?
When figuring out pricing of prints or downloads or whatever you're selling, if you are running a business and not just a hobby, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE WHAT YOUR COST OF SALE IS if you want to stay in business. This includes equipment costs (both initial and what is all the wear and tear on your camera worth?), supply costs (printing or discs, etc), insurance costs (both business liability and equipment ... what are you going to do if someone trips over your equipment at a shoot and then decides to sue you? or if you are at that really good corner and a bike comes barrelling out of control at you and in the process of getting out of the way, you break your camera and/or lens (homeowner's/renter's insurance WILL NOT COVER EQUIPMENT USED FOR A BUSINESS PURPOSE!!!! and if you are taking ANY money for your photography, it WILL be considered a business purpose), in some areas, business tax, the ever popular sales tax (at least where I'm at, if you give a customer a product, it is considered a taxable item), not to mention the cost of YOUR time in what ever post production you do to make your final product. It is entirely possible that these people who you say charge so damn much are just barely covering what their expenses are.
ack, why do I bother trying to explain that it costs money to run a business and that those costs have to be figured into what the product pricing is?
Thanks for the post but you also missed the point.
They probably do not want to sell digital files and therefore price it accordingly. No big mystery. As far as being "forced" to use low res watermarked images does the photographer provide low res watermarked files for free or are they illegally lifted from the site?
They provide them.
You guys can joke about school and pat each other on the back all you want. I don't care because I am making more money than the "old school" guys that force people to buy prints only if they want pictures. That or they make the kids go without food so they can afford to buy a digital file or two.
I think it's wonderful that anyone can afford a DSLR and quickly learn how to use it. The grumpy old "pros" are gonna have to wake up and realize that times have changed and competition is fierce. I'd be grumpy too!
The simple fact is..... I am providing a service that people want. Many others are NOT. Some people want prints but most of my customers want affordable downloads. I am giving that to them therefore I am making money while everyone is complaining and bashing old school marketing practices.
You guys also assume that I am selling dirt cheap. That isn't the case at all. Just A LOT less than a few hundred dollars for one digital file.
You guys also assume that I am selling dirt cheap. That isn't the case at all. Just A LOT less than a few hundred dollars for one digital file.
You know, if you had just answered Sam's question way back at the beginning of this then no one would have assumed you were selling stuff dirt cheap or complaining about competition with reasonable prices. Sheesh! Instead you chose to be a jerk to Sam about it.
I think it's wonderful that anyone can afford a DSLR and quickly learn how to use it. The grumpy old "pros" are gonna have to wake up and realize that times have changed and competition is fierce. I'd be grumpy too!
Finally, something we disagree on!
Not all of the old pros are pros imho, but the one's who are? They know this craft so well it would take the same lifetime to even get close to what they do. Don't ever feel like you've arrived, it will always make you sound pompous and arrogant. Pride comes before the something, something...
Just sayin' - there are many sides to any issue. But if you want to survive and sell photos, even at a very modest profit per unit, (and if you don't want to make ANY profit, you should be a registered charity), pricing should reflect all relevant costs including that modest profit.
I agree. I also think that you have to make things affordable to sell them. The whole issue really isn't about pricing structure other than ridiculous prices for digital downloads. I have ALWAYS assumed it was to force people to buy prints and I was just trying to find out for sure. Then a few "old pros" turned into something else all together. I confirmed my suspicions but not thanks to the BS in this thread. Thanks for posting though and thanks to those for the book recommendations.
Not all of the old pros are pros imho, but the one's who are? They know this craft so well it would take the same lifetime to even get close to what they do. Don't ever feel like you've arrived, it will always make you sound pompous and arrogant. Pride comes before the something, something...
It was generalization and not referring to any one persons in this thread... re "old pros".
Arrogant or not... it is what it is. Do you disagree with my statement about anyone buying a DSLR and learning how to use it therefore creating competition? That's a good thing... especially for customers. With today's technology..... people can quickly match what took a lifetime to master in yesteryear. It is a good thing! Some people are not going to like that.... obviously.
It was generalization and not referring to any one persons in this thread... re "old pros".
Arrogant or not... it is what it is. Do you disagree with my statement about anyone buying a DSLR and learning how to use it therefore creating competition? That's a good thing... especially for customers. With today's technology..... people can quickly match what took a lifetime to master in yesteryear. It is a good thing! Some people are not going to like that.... obviously.
yeah... like I can "quickly" master what took an Andrew Wheeler or a John Thawley a lifetime to master just by buying a dSLR.
You know, if you had just answered Sam's question way back at the beginning of this then no one would have assumed you were selling stuff dirt cheap or complaining about competition with reasonable prices. Sheesh! Instead you chose to be a jerk to Sam about it.
No. Sam tried to turn into a quality issue and tried to bring my photos into it. Plain and simple......... he was trying to set up something that was entirely unrelated to my question.
yeah... like I can "quickly" master what took an Andrew Wheeler or a John Thawley a lifetime to master just by buying a dSLR.
No, you can't. And yes, it is arrogant.
You know what I meant. Thanks for spinning it the best as you could though.
IN GENERAL, IT IS MUCH EASIER THESE DAYS FOR AN AVERAGE JOE TO BUY A DSLR AND QUICKLY LEARN HOW TO TAKE PRO QUALITY PHOTOS.
So, do you agree or disagree with my last statement?
Disagree. Sheesh. Its like saying that since quality pots and pans are so affordable anymore that anyone can quickly become a cook like an "old pro", or since guitars are cheaper these days....
Disagree. Sheesh. Its like saying that since quality pots and pans are so affordable anymore that anyone can quickly become a cook like an "old pro", or since guitars are cheaper these days....
Sorry, you are wrong. A DSLR is simply an advanced tool that DEFINITELY makes it easier to do.
snip…
With today's technology..... people can quickly match what took a lifetime to master in yesteryear. It is a good thing!
…snip
I would argue that it is not necessarily A Good Thing!
Part of the problem is that in this "point & shoot", "camera thinks for you" world, it's so very easy to be a "photographer" - everybody with a digital camera is a "photographer"…
…whether they know anything about what they're doing or not.
I get tired of excuses "…oh, well this is My Look! Rules are made to be broken! This is cool! …it doesn't have to be in focus or correctly exposed, this is what my customers want!"
Ah! now the last one might be valid, as H. L. Mencken wrote "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public", but this has little to do with improving standards and a lot to do with making money (Welcome to America, folks!)
Another part of the problem is that mediocrity is now the norm, not just in photography but in other things (think entertainment, service, how people behave, how they treat each other (grand-parents, parents, peers, children)); striving for excellence seems to be a thing of the past.
Another analogy: take a look at the general lowering of standards of grammar and spelling. "Oh, I don't have time to capitalize correctly, and does it really matter?" Well, it might. If a writer can't be bothered to form correct sentences, which conform to tried & tested rules in order to communicate a precise idea, what else might one infer about the writer?
Anyway, I digress - back to the original subject - think on this: If you price your work too low, there is a danger that folk will think that it can't be very good as the price is too low… (strange, but true!)
A modern DSLR will make it easier to have the images in focus and more or less exposed correctly, however it will not teach someone how to compose a good image, how to see how light affects composition ... the technology is only part of the equation ... the most powerful tool is the one between the ears; an ok photographer can take a decent image with a D300 or D3, a good one can take a good image with whatever tool they have at hand, be it the latest digital camera or a Holga or a Diana.
Are there photography business models that can survive on getting $5 to 10 for a high-res image? Sure, the folks who photograph on the Dragon for example ... however they all deal with VERY high volume and I'm sure the ones who have been there for years (killboy, rt129) have their workflow set up so that it is VERY efficient. They also have other types of photography income streams and possibly other income as well. The people you saw at the track may not have that option ... they may also have to pay a kickback TO the track to be there taking pictures and if they are doing photography AS a business and not as just a weekend fling, they do have to figure their costs accordingly.
You ask, why are they ripping people off? Perhaps they're not, maybe that's what their business model demands as a selling price... if they are not high volume, that is entirely possible. Perhaps what you should be asking is why are you so cheap? Do you value what you do so little?
A modern DSLR will make it easier to have the images in focus and more or less exposed correctly, however it will not teach someone how to compose a good image, how to see how light affects composition ... the technology is only part of the equation ... the most powerful tool is the one between the ears; an ok photographer can take a decent image with a D300 or D3, a good one can take a good image with whatever tool they have at hand, be it the latest digital camera or a Holga or a Diana.
IN GENERAL, IT IS MUCH EASIER THESE DAYS FOR AN AVERAGE JOE TO BUY A DSLR AND QUICKLY LEARN HOW TO TAKE PRO QUALITY PHOTOS.
... just as it's much easier these days for an average Joe to gain access to top quality pots and pans and quickly learn to cook like a Michelin star chef!
No. Sam tried to turn into a quality issue and tried to bring my photos into it. Plain and simple......... he was trying to set up something that was entirely unrelated to my question.
You are partially semi correct. I will now reveal the secret setup I was working to get you to bite on.
Once I had located your web site (which I did) and was able to view the websites of those you are ranting about, (which I can't). I would have been able to look at and compare the quality, pricing.
Most photographers consider image quality to be paramount, and pricing should reflect quality as well as many other factors, but from a consumers view it's the image that counts.
Some may be happy with less than stellar images if the price is right, others prefer high quality.
Once I had all the information I would have then be in a position to offer thoughts on your question. The answer could be different than your answer that you want everyone to agree with.
That said I think I have learned more than enough by just reading the posts.
Note: This post was made for Bill and the others sitting by their computers shaking their heads.
Sorry, you are wrong. A DSLR is simply an advanced tool that DEFINITELY makes it easier to do.
You're definitely simplifying something that isn't so simple and again, imho, it's making you sound close minded and arrogant. I hate saying that but that's how you're coming across.
Remember, the SLR is just a tool. Why does one photographer have a D3 over a D5000? I love K. Rockwell for iterating over and over on his site the truth that these cameras are just tools. A means to an end. The picture quality between a D3 and a D5000 is a joke to the average shooter outside in midday taking snapshots and avoiding the work it takes to create great images. The end has to start in your mind though. I think it was same who posted before that the most important tool is the one between you ears.
Everyone is born with a brain but not everyone uses it well.
Anyone can buy an SLR but not everyone will use it well.
That's reality. There are those who want to take quick pictures with good image quality and then there are those who want to compose great images that capture the essence of a moment and capture it well.
Wow, this was a nice witch hunt.
A guy asks a very simple question, and a group of people climb all over him.
The question was why some of us charge a lot for downloads.
Is there something hard to understand about this?
Is there some reason to jump all over somebody for darning to ask such a question?
Geez, get over yourselves.
If you were that friggin great of photographers, you wouldn't be here handing out advice for free.
Your posts complaining about what the OP charges proves that point.
And this same old crap about pots and pans. The pots and pans are just the data cards.
You fill them on the stove, or in the oven, and empty them onto a plate.
The stove, oven, ingredients, (camera, lenses, subject) will make the dish.
And if anyone really thinks that you can't learn photography faster now with digital cameras,
than the Masters, (or anyone else) could with film, I'll take a drink of whatever your having.
And one last thing, I've offered this before, and have yet to have anyone take me up on it.
I have an old Fuji MX-700 camera that I will trade you for all your DSLR equipment.
After all, any old pots and pans will do.
Wow, this was a nice witch hunt.
A guy asks a very simple question, and a group of people climb all over him.
The question was why some of us charge a lot for downloads.
Is there something hard to understand about this?
Is there some reason to jump all over somebody for darning to ask such a question?
Geez, get over yourselves.
If you were that friggin great of photographers, you wouldn't be here handing out advice for free.
Your posts complaining about what the OP charges proves that point. ^^ I'm pretty sure no one was complaining about what the OP charges. The OP was complaining about what everyone else at the track charges.
And this same old crap about pots and pans. The pots and pans are just the data cards.
You fill them on the stove, or in the oven, and empty them onto a plate.
The stove, oven, ingredients, (camera, lenses, subject) will make the dish. ^^ That's what everyone said.
And if anyone really thinks that you can't learn photography faster now with digital cameras,
than the Masters, (or anyone else) could with film, I'll take a drink of whatever your having. ^^ That's what everyone said.
And one last thing, I've offered this before, and have yet to have anyone take me up on it.
I have an old Fuji MX-700 camera that I will trade you for all your DSLR equipment.
After all, any old pots and pans will do. ^^ Just cus a pot/pan can produce the same quality food doesn't mean it's worth the same thing as a brand new pot/pan
Originally Posted by davev Wow, this was a nice witch hunt.
A guy asks a very simple question, and a group of people climb all over him.
The question was why some of us charge a lot for downloads.
Is there something hard to understand about this?
Is there some reason to jump all over somebody for darning to ask such a question?
Geez, get over yourselves.
If you were that friggin great of photographers, you wouldn't be here handing out advice for free.
Your posts complaining about what the OP charges proves that point. ^^ I'm pretty sure no one was complaining about what the OP charges. The OP was complaining about what everyone else at the track charges.
And this same old crap about pots and pans. The pots and pans are just the data cards.
You fill them on the stove, or in the oven, and empty them onto a plate.
The stove, oven, ingredients, (camera, lenses, subject) will make the dish. ^^ That's what everyone said.
And if anyone really thinks that you can't learn photography faster now with digital cameras,
than the Masters, (or anyone else) could with film, I'll take a drink of whatever your having. ^^ That's what everyone said.
And one last thing, I've offered this before, and have yet to have anyone take me up on it.
I have an old Fuji MX-700 camera that I will trade you for all your DSLR equipment.
After all, any old pots and pans will do. ^^ Just cus a pot/pan can produce the same quality food doesn't mean it's worth the same thing as a brand new pot/pan
thanks Wally
The only thing I want to add is that I was trying to explain why someone might charge the prices that they do .... can't force anyone to comprehend the explanation.
I was just curious as to why so MANY photographers put a ridiculous price on their downloads? Do they do this because they KNOW that people can't afford that and they want to force them to buy prints only? I have seen some riculous pricing and clearly the photographer is NOT selling any images at that price. Some people charge as much as the cost of a new digital camera and their work is nothing special at all!!!! What is the whole point of that? Is it forcing prints on the customer? That really turns a customer off and then there is no sale at all. I personally like to make most of my images affordable so people will ACTUALLY buy them. Everyone is free to price their work as they wish but I was wondering why so many people like to price themselves out of a sale. Is it about prints or putting a false value on their work?
I don't recognize your basic premise. Ridiculous pricing??? Lots of photographers sell images for next to nothing - I recently bought rights to use one for 99 cents. If this industry has a problem it is with undercutting and not with ridiculous pricing.
Not surprising when anyone with a mobile phone can take a decent snapshot.
A pro-photographer has a different value proposition. He or she turns up on time with the right equipment and delivers a reliable result, exceeding expectations whatever the conditions. The reason pros buy expensive lenses is much more to do with reliability, ease-of-use, different weather, than it is to do with better image quality.
The other problem is not understanding the market. People on a day out have some money to spend. For the price of a coffee or a round of ice-cream you might also be able to sell a photo to someone who never looks at it, never intended to buy a photo, and couldn't care less. Good luck if you think cheap photos puts you in this market - better sell coffee or ice-cream imho. Almost everybody buys coffee, many buy ice-cream, while relatively few buy cheap photos.
Wow, this was a nice witch hunt.
A guy asks a very simple question, and a group of people climb all over him.
The question was why some of us charge a lot for downloads.
Is there something hard to understand about this?
Is there some reason to jump all over somebody for darning to ask such a question?
Geez, get over yourselves.
If you were that friggin great of photographers, you wouldn't be here handing out advice for free.
Your posts complaining about what the OP charges proves that point.
And this same old crap about pots and pans. The pots and pans are just the data cards.
You fill them on the stove, or in the oven, and empty them onto a plate.
The stove, oven, ingredients, (camera, lenses, subject) will make the dish.
And if anyone really thinks that you can't learn photography faster now with digital cameras,
than the Masters, (or anyone else) could with film, I'll take a drink of whatever your having.
And one last thing, I've offered this before, and have yet to have anyone take me up on it.
I have an old Fuji MX-700 camera that I will trade you for all your DSLR equipment.
After all, any old pots and pans will do.
Later.
Hi Dave,
First let me say I enjoyed visiting your website. A few notes on your site: You may want to consider enable right click protection, and a watermark.
Second, maybe you could answer the OP as to why your download pricing is where it's at. I think your an example of what he calls ridicules high.
Now to the meat. Many offer their opinions and experience here for free. I have , and will continue to benefited from this. One example is Marc Munch (there are so many others I couldn't list them all and use Marc as an example for all of them). He is a high end experienced successful professional photographer who offers his expertise here a for free. When Marc or many many others here post an opinion or information whether I agree or not I sure do pay attention.
I don't think the people her who are answering the OP have expressed any claims of being a "friggin" great photographer. But most do have a lot more experience that the OP who admits to being new.
The OP comes across (my personal opinion) with the arrogance of youth, close mindedness, inexperience, ignorance and a know it all attitude. This is not meant as an attack or to be confrontational but what I see.
Ignore me......but there are so many people here with years of experience and knowledge freely given. You / me have the ability to learn at an accelerated pace beyond what was possible in the past, but you must work and apply yourself.
The OP stated (seemed to mock) and state his images were better than the guys with those expensive white lenses. While I find that hard to believe I did ask for examples and evidence to look at. The approaches to the OP's questions have come from a quality and business standpoint, yet both approaches / answers seem to be totally ignored. The OP can't seem to grasp common business principals, and calls other photographers greedy outsiders who aren't selling anything. As stated before if they weren't selling anything they wouldn't continue to show up.
The costs associated with a real business and those of a part time hobbyist are vastly different.
OK the OP asked for opinions, I will offer mine based on the partial information available.
The pro photographers you speak of have a lot (10K, 20K, 30K) worth of equipment that has to be paid for. They need compensation for their time and experience. Selling original / full res images cheaply without any use restrictions is cutting their own throats.
At this point the OP seems to be taking photos at a local club level. The quality is that of a beginner, and I haven't seen anything really compelling or of national interest. He is right about many people today preferring digital downloads to prints, but from a business standpoint is it better / more profitable to offer a file for say $3.00 or to not sell it at all?
If you really do the math from a purely business perspective I believe you will find the most profitable choice between these two is to quite photography altogether.
Now I offer a challenge to the OP: print out this entire thread, take it to your minister / priest / mentor / adult / and without any prompting ask them to read it and comment. Then come back and post a response.
Let's say you have 5 photographers taking photos at a racetrack. 4 of them have ridiculous pricing. 1 has affordable pricing. Well, guess who is selling photos and guess who isn't? I thought it was suppose to be about selling photos.... not pricing yourself out of a sale. I guess since I am new to the business.... I still see things from a customer's point of view.... but it's helping me make money. The day I go "ridiculous" is the day I stop making money. I just don't get why people price themselves out of a sale. It does no good except drive up print sales and that's why I think people do it. Am I wrong?
This is what I am selling.... and people are buying ONLY because they can afford it. I would much rather sell than not sell. I just don't understand why most people don't feel the same as I do. I am just trying to understand.
Forgive me for just parachuting in midstream... however, I read your original post and the one I'm quoting here.
There are a couple of issues you may not have considered and I'd like to shed light on those.
Let's say you have 5 photographers taking photos at a racetrack. 4 of them have ridiculous pricing. 1 has affordable pricing. Well, guess who is selling photos and guess who isn't?
That's somewhat arbitrary. Just last week at an event I made the observation and comment that the photo room/media center was nearly empty. Someone said it was because the economy is down and there is "no business." Yet... when I looked around and took note of who was missing and who was there, it was apparent that the "no business" assumption was wrong. After all, there were still 35 race teams on the track.
Who wasn't there were the guys that shoot cheap and the guys who shoot for free "in order to build their name/brand." Who was there were the guys who charge appropriately for their time and their work. The pros. The same guys who deliver quality work and quality service in a timely fashion week in, week out. In other words, the guys who do this as a business and do it for real.
It's called survival of the fittest.
If all you have to offer is "price," someone will always be around to beat that price. Whereas, if you want to beat me or one of my counterparts, you'd better lace up your sneakers, be at the top of your game and be prepared to deliver quality work with quality service and in a timely fashion.
Second, let's talk about selling digital downloads... and the relative pricing.
To be honest, you're "partially" right about the pricing. I don't want to sell digital downloads. That is, I don't want to sell them to people that have no use or need for them. And there's your answer.
I sell people what they need and price it accordingly.
If you are a race team and need images for a web site, pr, or internal promotional pieces, I have a weekend rate that will suit your needs.
If you are a sponsor or manufacture and need images for a web site, pr, internal promotional needs AND commercial use, I have a weekend rate that will suit your needs.
If you are manufacturer and/or sponsor and need a single image to run in a half page ad in USA Today, there's a rate for the license to use that image specifically to those parameters.
If you are manufacturer and/or sponsor (as above) running a FULL PAGE in USA Today, there's a rate for that license.
If the same manufacturer / sponsor wants to run that full page in several publications, then there are pro-rated usage fees for their needs as well.
Ultimately, if a manufacturer / sponsor is going to use an image in multiple ways the negotiation will ultimately fall under the terms of what is called a "blanket use"... though it still may have geographical and chronological restraints and conditions. Say, 1 year restricted to North America.
Lastly, on occasion, a client may ask for a buy-out on an image. Given the "blanket use" can easily hit a number that has at least five figures to the LEFT of the decimal point, you can imagine what a buy-out can command.
This is no different than your print model offering pricing to accommodate a 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, or 20x30. Each commands a different price. And, as you are aware, the price is not about the cost of time and material involved in making the print.
Much of this revolves around controlling the use of my work. I have an obligation to my clients to assure them they are not paying more for MY work than anyone else. If they pay me $7500 for the use of a single image (and they do) it would be very difficult for me to defend selling someone else the same image for $50 or $500. Hence, it's important that I "control" the use of my files/images.
I want to give everyone the opportunity to get the image they need for the use they need it for. If you want an 8x10 of yourself taken by me, it'll cost you $35-$50. And what's wrong with that? You get what you want at a fair price.
An image I produce is no different than a song that Lady GaGa produces. The value is based on people responding to the work. If all the readers of USA Today see my photo and have a positive response to the advertiser's products and services, the image has worked for them therefore a value is established. If people buy Lady GaGa's song, her and her record company are paid accordingly and the value is established.
It's a fundamental structure formulated to create value for intellectual property. You're not paying for me pushing the button on the camera... you're paying for my ability to know where to stand, when to push the button and whatever unique point of view I bring to the scene. I don't just "take" a picture, I "make" the picture.
The problem in the market place is often created by folks that haven't thought beyond the thrill of selling and/or getting paid for photos. Often they've been shooting for a hobby... get a chance to shoot an event... and are thrilled someone wants to pay them for a photo. I understand where that feels good and might initially be exciting. But... when you have overhead, insurance, travel expenses, equipment costs and on and on... you need to create and understand fair value for your work.
Once you've established your costs of doing business, THEN and ONLY THEN do you begin to factor in the value-add of your talent. It is at that point you're now at the mercy of the free market. If the market likes your work better than your competitors (even the cheaper guy) you're entitled to get what the market will bear. That's what free enterprise is all about.
Lastly, should you be fortunate enough to create enough demand.... so much so that you can't service any more clients (according to your standard of service that you've promised), you're only option is to work for those that are willing to pay the most. If your work and talent commands those kinds of fees, good for you.
If you're the Derek Jeter or Labron James in your field or occupation, you owe it to yourself and your family to set your fees accordingly.
Hopefully I've provided another perspective for you. And forgive me if I've repeated anything in posts made by others. I haven't had the time to read them all.
Comments
:d
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
They probably do not want to sell digital files and therefore price it accordingly. No big mystery. As far as being "forced" to use low res watermarked images does the photographer provide low res watermarked files for free or are they illegally lifted from the site?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Thanks for the post but you also missed the point.
They provide them.
You guys can joke about school and pat each other on the back all you want. I don't care because I am making more money than the "old school" guys that force people to buy prints only if they want pictures. That or they make the kids go without food so they can afford to buy a digital file or two.
The simple fact is..... I am providing a service that people want. Many others are NOT. Some people want prints but most of my customers want affordable downloads. I am giving that to them therefore I am making money while everyone is complaining and bashing old school marketing practices.
You guys also assume that I am selling dirt cheap. That isn't the case at all. Just A LOT less than a few hundred dollars for one digital file.
You know, if you had just answered Sam's question way back at the beginning of this then no one would have assumed you were selling stuff dirt cheap or complaining about competition with reasonable prices. Sheesh! Instead you chose to be a jerk to Sam about it.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Finally, something we disagree on!
Not all of the old pros are pros imho, but the one's who are? They know this craft so well it would take the same lifetime to even get close to what they do. Don't ever feel like you've arrived, it will always make you sound pompous and arrogant. Pride comes before the something, something...
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
I agree. I also think that you have to make things affordable to sell them. The whole issue really isn't about pricing structure other than ridiculous prices for digital downloads. I have ALWAYS assumed it was to force people to buy prints and I was just trying to find out for sure. Then a few "old pros" turned into something else all together. I confirmed my suspicions but not thanks to the BS in this thread.
It was generalization and not referring to any one persons in this thread... re "old pros".
Arrogant or not... it is what it is. Do you disagree with my statement about anyone buying a DSLR and learning how to use it therefore creating competition? That's a good thing... especially for customers. With today's technology..... people can quickly match what took a lifetime to master in yesteryear. It is a good thing! Some people are not going to like that.... obviously.
yeah... like I can "quickly" master what took an Andrew Wheeler or a John Thawley a lifetime to master just by buying a dSLR.
No, you can't. And yes, it is arrogant.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
No. Sam tried to turn into a quality issue and tried to bring my photos into it. Plain and simple......... he was trying to set up something that was entirely unrelated to my question.
You know what I meant. Thanks for spinning it the best as you could though.
IN GENERAL, IT IS MUCH EASIER THESE DAYS FOR AN AVERAGE JOE TO BUY A DSLR AND QUICKLY LEARN HOW TO TAKE PRO QUALITY PHOTOS.
And you know what I meant.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
So, do you agree or disagree with my last statement?
Disagree. Sheesh. Its like saying that since quality pots and pans are so affordable anymore that anyone can quickly become a cook like an "old pro", or since guitars are cheaper these days....
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Sorry, you are wrong. A DSLR is simply an advanced tool that DEFINITELY makes it easier to do.
I would argue that it is not necessarily A Good Thing!
Part of the problem is that in this "point & shoot", "camera thinks for you" world, it's so very easy to be a "photographer" - everybody with a digital camera is a "photographer"…
…whether they know anything about what they're doing or not.
I get tired of excuses "…oh, well this is My Look! Rules are made to be broken! This is cool! …it doesn't have to be in focus or correctly exposed, this is what my customers want!"
Ah! now the last one might be valid, as H. L. Mencken wrote "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public", but this has little to do with improving standards and a lot to do with making money (Welcome to America, folks!)
Another part of the problem is that mediocrity is now the norm, not just in photography but in other things (think entertainment, service, how people behave, how they treat each other (grand-parents, parents, peers, children)); striving for excellence seems to be a thing of the past.
Another analogy: take a look at the general lowering of standards of grammar and spelling. "Oh, I don't have time to capitalize correctly, and does it really matter?" Well, it might. If a writer can't be bothered to form correct sentences, which conform to tried & tested rules in order to communicate a precise idea, what else might one infer about the writer?
Anyway, I digress - back to the original subject - think on this: If you price your work too low, there is a danger that folk will think that it can't be very good as the price is too low… (strange, but true!)
- Wil
Are there photography business models that can survive on getting $5 to 10 for a high-res image? Sure, the folks who photograph on the Dragon for example ... however they all deal with VERY high volume and I'm sure the ones who have been there for years (killboy, rt129) have their workflow set up so that it is VERY efficient. They also have other types of photography income streams and possibly other income as well. The people you saw at the track may not have that option ... they may also have to pay a kickback TO the track to be there taking pictures and if they are doing photography AS a business and not as just a weekend fling, they do have to figure their costs accordingly.
You ask, why are they ripping people off? Perhaps they're not, maybe that's what their business model demands as a selling price... if they are not high volume, that is entirely possible. Perhaps what you should be asking is why are you so cheap? Do you value what you do so little?
www.fastcatstudio.com
www.fastcatstudio.net - blog
Precisely!!!
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
You are partially semi correct. I will now reveal the secret setup I was working to get you to bite on.
Once I had located your web site (which I did) and was able to view the websites of those you are ranting about, (which I can't). I would have been able to look at and compare the quality, pricing.
Most photographers consider image quality to be paramount, and pricing should reflect quality as well as many other factors, but from a consumers view it's the image that counts.
Some may be happy with less than stellar images if the price is right, others prefer high quality.
Once I had all the information I would have then be in a position to offer thoughts on your question. The answer could be different than your answer that you want everyone to agree with.
That said I think I have learned more than enough by just reading the posts.
Note: This post was made for Bill and the others sitting by their computers shaking their heads.
Sam
You're definitely simplifying something that isn't so simple and again, imho, it's making you sound close minded and arrogant. I hate saying that but that's how you're coming across.
Remember, the SLR is just a tool. Why does one photographer have a D3 over a D5000? I love K. Rockwell for iterating over and over on his site the truth that these cameras are just tools. A means to an end. The picture quality between a D3 and a D5000 is a joke to the average shooter outside in midday taking snapshots and avoiding the work it takes to create great images. The end has to start in your mind though. I think it was same who posted before that the most important tool is the one between you ears.
Everyone is born with a brain but not everyone uses it well.
Anyone can buy an SLR but not everyone will use it well.
That's reality. There are those who want to take quick pictures with good image quality and then there are those who want to compose great images that capture the essence of a moment and capture it well.
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
A guy asks a very simple question, and a group of people climb all over him.
The question was why some of us charge a lot for downloads.
Is there something hard to understand about this?
Is there some reason to jump all over somebody for darning to ask such a question?
Geez, get over yourselves.
If you were that friggin great of photographers, you wouldn't be here handing out advice for free.
Your posts complaining about what the OP charges proves that point.
And this same old crap about pots and pans. The pots and pans are just the data cards.
You fill them on the stove, or in the oven, and empty them onto a plate.
The stove, oven, ingredients, (camera, lenses, subject) will make the dish.
And if anyone really thinks that you can't learn photography faster now with digital cameras,
than the Masters, (or anyone else) could with film, I'll take a drink of whatever your having.
And one last thing, I've offered this before, and have yet to have anyone take me up on it.
I have an old Fuji MX-700 camera that I will trade you for all your DSLR equipment.
After all, any old pots and pans will do.
Later.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
thanks Wally
The only thing I want to add is that I was trying to explain why someone might charge the prices that they do .... can't force anyone to comprehend the explanation.
www.fastcatstudio.com
www.fastcatstudio.net - blog
To all involved in this thread: please keep things on topic, no need for uncivil discourse by anyone.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I don't recognize your basic premise. Ridiculous pricing??? Lots of photographers sell images for next to nothing - I recently bought rights to use one for 99 cents. If this industry has a problem it is with undercutting and not with ridiculous pricing.
Not surprising when anyone with a mobile phone can take a decent snapshot.
A pro-photographer has a different value proposition. He or she turns up on time with the right equipment and delivers a reliable result, exceeding expectations whatever the conditions. The reason pros buy expensive lenses is much more to do with reliability, ease-of-use, different weather, than it is to do with better image quality.
The other problem is not understanding the market. People on a day out have some money to spend. For the price of a coffee or a round of ice-cream you might also be able to sell a photo to someone who never looks at it, never intended to buy a photo, and couldn't care less. Good luck if you think cheap photos puts you in this market - better sell coffee or ice-cream imho. Almost everybody buys coffee, many buy ice-cream, while relatively few buy cheap photos.
Hi Dave,
First let me say I enjoyed visiting your website. A few notes on your site: You may want to consider enable right click protection, and a watermark.
Second, maybe you could answer the OP as to why your download pricing is where it's at. I think your an example of what he calls ridicules high.
Now to the meat. Many offer their opinions and experience here for free. I have , and will continue to benefited from this. One example is Marc Munch (there are so many others I couldn't list them all and use Marc as an example for all of them). He is a high end experienced successful professional photographer who offers his expertise here a for free. When Marc or many many others here post an opinion or information whether I agree or not I sure do pay attention.
I don't think the people her who are answering the OP have expressed any claims of being a "friggin" great photographer. But most do have a lot more experience that the OP who admits to being new.
The OP comes across (my personal opinion) with the arrogance of youth, close mindedness, inexperience, ignorance and a know it all attitude. This is not meant as an attack or to be confrontational but what I see.
Ignore me......but there are so many people here with years of experience and knowledge freely given. You / me have the ability to learn at an accelerated pace beyond what was possible in the past, but you must work and apply yourself.
The OP stated (seemed to mock) and state his images were better than the guys with those expensive white lenses. While I find that hard to believe I did ask for examples and evidence to look at. The approaches to the OP's questions have come from a quality and business standpoint, yet both approaches / answers seem to be totally ignored. The OP can't seem to grasp common business principals, and calls other photographers greedy outsiders who aren't selling anything. As stated before if they weren't selling anything they wouldn't continue to show up.
The costs associated with a real business and those of a part time hobbyist are vastly different.
OK the OP asked for opinions, I will offer mine based on the partial information available.
The pro photographers you speak of have a lot (10K, 20K, 30K) worth of equipment that has to be paid for. They need compensation for their time and experience. Selling original / full res images cheaply without any use restrictions is cutting their own throats.
At this point the OP seems to be taking photos at a local club level. The quality is that of a beginner, and I haven't seen anything really compelling or of national interest. He is right about many people today preferring digital downloads to prints, but from a business standpoint is it better / more profitable to offer a file for say $3.00 or to not sell it at all?
If you really do the math from a purely business perspective I believe you will find the most profitable choice between these two is to quite photography altogether.
Now I offer a challenge to the OP: print out this entire thread, take it to your minister / priest / mentor / adult / and without any prompting ask them to read it and comment. Then come back and post a response.
Sam
Forgive me for just parachuting in midstream... however, I read your original post and the one I'm quoting here.
There are a couple of issues you may not have considered and I'd like to shed light on those.
First, the scenario you outlined here:
That's somewhat arbitrary. Just last week at an event I made the observation and comment that the photo room/media center was nearly empty. Someone said it was because the economy is down and there is "no business." Yet... when I looked around and took note of who was missing and who was there, it was apparent that the "no business" assumption was wrong. After all, there were still 35 race teams on the track.
Who wasn't there were the guys that shoot cheap and the guys who shoot for free "in order to build their name/brand." Who was there were the guys who charge appropriately for their time and their work. The pros. The same guys who deliver quality work and quality service in a timely fashion week in, week out. In other words, the guys who do this as a business and do it for real.
It's called survival of the fittest.
If all you have to offer is "price," someone will always be around to beat that price. Whereas, if you want to beat me or one of my counterparts, you'd better lace up your sneakers, be at the top of your game and be prepared to deliver quality work with quality service and in a timely fashion.
Second, let's talk about selling digital downloads... and the relative pricing.
To be honest, you're "partially" right about the pricing. I don't want to sell digital downloads. That is, I don't want to sell them to people that have no use or need for them. And there's your answer.
I sell people what they need and price it accordingly.
If you are a race team and need images for a web site, pr, or internal promotional pieces, I have a weekend rate that will suit your needs.
If you are a sponsor or manufacture and need images for a web site, pr, internal promotional needs AND commercial use, I have a weekend rate that will suit your needs.
If you are manufacturer and/or sponsor and need a single image to run in a half page ad in USA Today, there's a rate for the license to use that image specifically to those parameters.
If you are manufacturer and/or sponsor (as above) running a FULL PAGE in USA Today, there's a rate for that license.
If the same manufacturer / sponsor wants to run that full page in several publications, then there are pro-rated usage fees for their needs as well.
Ultimately, if a manufacturer / sponsor is going to use an image in multiple ways the negotiation will ultimately fall under the terms of what is called a "blanket use"... though it still may have geographical and chronological restraints and conditions. Say, 1 year restricted to North America.
Lastly, on occasion, a client may ask for a buy-out on an image. Given the "blanket use" can easily hit a number that has at least five figures to the LEFT of the decimal point, you can imagine what a buy-out can command.
This is no different than your print model offering pricing to accommodate a 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, or 20x30. Each commands a different price. And, as you are aware, the price is not about the cost of time and material involved in making the print.
Much of this revolves around controlling the use of my work. I have an obligation to my clients to assure them they are not paying more for MY work than anyone else. If they pay me $7500 for the use of a single image (and they do) it would be very difficult for me to defend selling someone else the same image for $50 or $500. Hence, it's important that I "control" the use of my files/images.
I want to give everyone the opportunity to get the image they need for the use they need it for. If you want an 8x10 of yourself taken by me, it'll cost you $35-$50. And what's wrong with that? You get what you want at a fair price.
An image I produce is no different than a song that Lady GaGa produces. The value is based on people responding to the work. If all the readers of USA Today see my photo and have a positive response to the advertiser's products and services, the image has worked for them therefore a value is established. If people buy Lady GaGa's song, her and her record company are paid accordingly and the value is established.
It's a fundamental structure formulated to create value for intellectual property. You're not paying for me pushing the button on the camera... you're paying for my ability to know where to stand, when to push the button and whatever unique point of view I bring to the scene. I don't just "take" a picture, I "make" the picture.
The problem in the market place is often created by folks that haven't thought beyond the thrill of selling and/or getting paid for photos. Often they've been shooting for a hobby... get a chance to shoot an event... and are thrilled someone wants to pay them for a photo. I understand where that feels good and might initially be exciting. But... when you have overhead, insurance, travel expenses, equipment costs and on and on... you need to create and understand fair value for your work.
Once you've established your costs of doing business, THEN and ONLY THEN do you begin to factor in the value-add of your talent. It is at that point you're now at the mercy of the free market. If the market likes your work better than your competitors (even the cheaper guy) you're entitled to get what the market will bear. That's what free enterprise is all about.
Lastly, should you be fortunate enough to create enough demand.... so much so that you can't service any more clients (according to your standard of service that you've promised), you're only option is to work for those that are willing to pay the most. If your work and talent commands those kinds of fees, good for you.
If you're the Derek Jeter or Labron James in your field or occupation, you owe it to yourself and your family to set your fees accordingly.
Hopefully I've provided another perspective for you. And forgive me if I've repeated anything in posts made by others. I haven't had the time to read them all.
All the best,
JT
He did. In post #4:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1421744&postcount=4
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter