| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2012 10:14:22 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 10:03:27 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by nickyb:
i believe in pricing, but not many buyers will care if its with an iphone or a 5d mii... i wouldnt pay $3 for that photo....
eta: thats not a quote, i like italicized things ;) |
It depends on your market. The iPhone is fine for snaps, or if you want to use it for effect the way people use plastic cameras like the LOMO, but you won't get far selling iPhone snaps for enlarged reproduction...they just fall apart. |
i know, just making an exaggeration ;) |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 10:02:35 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by nickyb:
i believe in pricing, but not many buyers will care if its with an iphone or a 5d mii... i wouldnt pay $3 for that photo....
eta: thats not a quote, i like italicized things ;) |
It depends on your market. The iPhone is fine for snaps, or if you want to use it for effect the way people use plastic cameras like the LOMO, but you won't get far selling iPhone snaps for enlarged reproduction...they just fall apart.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2012 08:51:24 AM · #4 |
i believe in pricing, but not many buyers will care if its with an iphone or a 5d mii... i wouldnt pay $3 for that photo....
eta: thats not a quote, i like italicized things ;)
Message edited by author 2012-01-16 08:51:55. |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 08:31:11 AM · #5 |
I've probably got £10k worth of camera equipment at retail replacement cost, I was out walking with my new Gf and her dog on Saturday at a beautiful spot near Sheffield called stanage edge, it's a gritstone bluff 5 miles long and between 3 and 10 metres high. Anyway do walking along see a helicopter come flying over which can only mean one thing air ambulance, double timed it over and got some shots inc the poor girl who'd fallen 6 metres while climbing being rescued and put on stretcher etc. got home and a mate said I should email the local paper so I did they rang me up and used the pics and a little quote from me etc.
I said they could use it and I've let the mountain rescue use it if they like for fund raising, now I might have got £100 or less out the paper, circulation is about 150-200k but thought the bit of good it might do about ppl be safer out in the peaks where I live and work would be better.
If I'd demanded 300 pounds for its use im not sure they'd have used who knows I'm way out my depth lol, they published 2 half page article
A picture is worth what someone will pay for it, but there is a trend in the age of the Internet for ppl to expect things for free
I'll post a pic when I get home on my iphone
Message edited by author 2012-01-16 08:36:44. |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 08:03:48 AM · #6 |
Well the site just failed to load, thus deleting my post, so take2...
Nicky: the article does not suggest a method of pricing your photos, it provides a real world cost for a specific photo. It's not a suggestion as to what someone should pay for said photo. It's like how the US defence budget is approx. $700 billion/year. Sure $700 billion works its way around the system, but the US isn't burning through $700 billion a year on defence. In fact a lot of the money it initially spends finds its way back in to the hands of the US government. Say another country wanted to pay for the US military's upkeep, r&d etc. for a year though - then it would cost said other country $700 billion. |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 01:58:53 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by Judi:
Well obviously my time is worth more than yours. So I am not going to bother wasting that time in here any longer! |
LOL |
Both Judi's comment, and Diver's expressed mirth at it, are patronising and unworthy of Nicky's contribution to the thread. Granted his last retort was a bit flippant (which I applaud, but that's just me). But his first and only purpose was to expose the absurdity of the position taken in the original quoted article.
Reducing the cost of a photograph to mathematics is absurd as a means of fixing its market value. It's also absurd as a means of fixing its value for litigation purposes, though litigation is no stranger to absurdity.
Nicky was using a reduction-to-absurdity to make his point. That's all.
The 'valuation' calculated in the linked article is self-defeating, and ultimately counter-productive for the author himself and for all professional photographers. It precludes, for example, the possibility of a higher valuation of his picture than that calculated. I understand what the author is saying; everybody does, surely? But in abdicating personal responsibility for valuing his own work, and by clear implication leaving it instead in the hands of accountants and lawyers, he does every professional photographer a disservice. |
thanks paul for seeing my point, but i was the blind one! this equation is pure awesomeness for all photographers! we'll all be rich in no time!;) |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 01:56:44 AM · #8 |
i still dont have a buyer for this shot: 
weird, im only charging $15,580
you know, $2500 for camera (w/ insurance), $2,000 for the lens (insured), 80 for the filter, 2,000 for flights to and from boston to ushaia argentina, 2000 on hotels in Buenos Aires, and a more than wishes to be disclosed amount on the cabin in the boat...lets say around 7,000.... :/
eta these are estimates..
Message edited by author 2012-01-16 02:23:33. |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 01:52:12 AM · #9 |
Lovely counter arguement
I guess most of it comes down to your own personal view on your photographs. Is it a business, or is it for the fun of it. |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 01:50:11 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by Judi:
Well obviously my time is worth more than yours. So I am not going to bother wasting that time in here any longer! |
LOL |
Both Judi's comment, and Diver's expressed mirth at it, are patronising and unworthy of Nicky's contribution to the thread. Granted his last retort was a bit flippant (which I applaud, but that's just me). But his first and only purpose was to expose the absurdity of the position taken in the original quoted article.
Reducing the cost of a photograph to mathematics is absurd as a means of fixing its market value. It's also absurd as a means of fixing its value for litigation purposes, though litigation is no stranger to absurdity.
Nicky was using a reduction-to-absurdity to make his point. That's all.
The 'valuation' calculated in the linked article is self-defeating, and ultimately counter-productive for the author himself and for all professional photographers. It precludes, for example, the possibility of a higher valuation of his picture than that calculated. I understand what the author is saying; everybody does, surely? But in abdicating personal responsibility for valuing his own work, and by clear implication leaving it instead in the hands of accountants and lawyers, he does every professional photographer a disservice.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2012 01:42:47 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by nickyb:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by nickyb:
ok, here is my last response...
he is missing the final point of the equation, so with the added amount of his gear, he must respectfully divide by the quantity of shots.
hereby, camera+lens+gear etc = $6,612, divided by the quantity of shots, lets say 20,000, so according to his method of finding the cost of this shot, the photo is worth (6612/20,000) $.33 |
Okay I get your point....but you have failed to take into account the time it has taken to get this image and process it. Also you need to take into account how this image will be used by the client. Even website usage has its price. He may have only taken that one image on that shoot. So therefore you cannot estimate that the total price is purely on what you have stated above. When and if you choose to become a professional this relevant information may be useful for you. |
ok lets be generous and make it a dollar;) |
Well obviously my time is worth more than yours. So I am not going to bother wasting that time in here any longer! |
+1 |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 01:18:58 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Well obviously my time is worth more than yours. So I am not going to bother wasting that time in here any longer! |
LOL |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 12:14:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by nickyb:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by nickyb:
ok, here is my last response...
he is missing the final point of the equation, so with the added amount of his gear, he must respectfully divide by the quantity of shots.
hereby, camera+lens+gear etc = $6,612, divided by the quantity of shots, lets say 20,000, so according to his method of finding the cost of this shot, the photo is worth (6612/20,000) $.33 |
Okay I get your point....but you have failed to take into account the time it has taken to get this image and process it. Also you need to take into account how this image will be used by the client. Even website usage has its price. He may have only taken that one image on that shoot. So therefore you cannot estimate that the total price is purely on what you have stated above. When and if you choose to become a professional this relevant information may be useful for you. |
ok lets be generous and make it a dollar;) |
Well obviously my time is worth more than yours. So I am not going to bother wasting that time in here any longer!
|
|
|
|
01/16/2012 12:09:50 AM · #14 |
| im just saying in my own weird way you cant calculate the value of an image like that |
|
|
|
01/16/2012 12:09:12 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by nickyb:
ok, here is my last response...
he is missing the final point of the equation, so with the added amount of his gear, he must respectfully divide by the quantity of shots.
hereby, camera+lens+gear etc = $6,612, divided by the quantity of shots, lets say 20,000, so according to his method of finding the cost of this shot, the photo is worth (6612/20,000) $.33 |
Okay I get your point....but you have failed to take into account the time it has taken to get this image and process it. Also you need to take into account how this image will be used by the client. Even website usage has its price. He may have only taken that one image on that shoot. So therefore you cannot estimate that the total price is purely on what you have stated above. When and if you choose to become a professional this relevant information may be useful for you. |
ok lets be generous and make it a dollar;) |
|
|
|
01/15/2012 11:07:03 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by nickyb:
ok, here is my last response...
he is missing the final point of the equation, so with the added amount of his gear, he must respectfully divide by the quantity of shots.
hereby, camera+lens+gear etc = $6,612, divided by the quantity of shots, lets say 20,000, so according to his method of finding the cost of this shot, the photo is worth (6612/20,000) $.33 |
Okay I get your point....but you have failed to take into account the time it has taken to get this image and process it. Also you need to take into account how this image will be used by the client. Even website usage has its price. He may have only taken that one image on that shoot. So therefore you cannot estimate that the total price is purely on what you have stated above. When and if you choose to become a professional this relevant information may be useful for you.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2012 11:00:49 PM · #17 |
ok, here is my last response...
he is missing the final point of the equation, so with the added amount of his gear, he must respectfully divide by the quantity of shots.
hereby, camera+lens+gear etc = $6,612, divided by the quantity of shots, lets say 20,000, so according to his method of finding the cost of this shot, the photo is worth (6612/20,000) $.33 |
|
|
|
01/15/2012 07:33:46 PM · #18 |
Judi has it, to a point. There is a great difference between value and price: value is what a thing is worth to someone, and price is what the seller expects to recieve for it. The two often do not correlate. Van Gogh died penniless and mad, would you consider him a professional? An artist? Both? It's not like he didn't care, I'm sure that he cared that he was starving and all he knew what to do was paint. As he scrambled around for odd jobs to scrape out a living, making a mere pittance for what painting he DID sell, I'm sure that he cared. But do we devalue him as a mere amateur just because he didn't make much of a living from his passion? Or would he be a professional because he made great works that, for some reason, no one appreciated or even saw at the time of creation? I guess the only question that can remain open for interpretation is: When do we start to charge, and how much? I would presume that all depends upon the individual. Personally, I feel as though a certain level must be attained, out of exposure, portfolio, and respectable skill level. Until you can do what no one else can do with a camera, I feel kind of cheap and petty for charging. I have, to my own surprise, sold two pictures. Both were viewed quite randomly while I was working on them, and both buyers were unwilling to pay what I had asked . . . they wanted to pay MORE. I guess the best thing for ME to do then is to put myself out there and wait a bit, when the fish nibble I'll know they are hungry and when they bite I'll know just HOW hungry. Until then, I'll just keep working and enjoy myself. If I make enough to pay for my investment, then I'll consider myself a professional. Maybe. I feel that for a photographer to be so bold as to put a price on something as subjective as art is rather . . .cocky. But in that regard, if the customer is willing to pay what is asked, then they must feel the value is there. If they want to grab it for free WITHOUT ASKING, that's just plain wrong. One can't really blame someone for asking for something for free. Any of us would be delighted if we asked a barista for some free coffee and got it, there was certainly no harm in asking and the reward completely outweighs the risk (what's the worst that could happen, they say no?). Two ways to look at it: either be pissed off because your pride is chaffed by the gall of someone to ask you for a free image, or you could be honored that someone thought your work worth having. Either way, you can say yes or no and the decision is all yours and no harm done.
Message edited by author 2012-01-15 19:46:14. |
|
|
|
01/15/2012 04:04:31 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dali_lama_2k:
Starting out takes sacrifice, emotional, temporal, physical, and financial sacrifice |
Exactly, so why should we be expected to give away our images to anyone that asks! Would they give me their products for free if I asked? I seriously doubt it. And that, to me, is the point the author of the article was making.....pay for what you are needing, don't expect or take it for free just cause you think you can!
|
|
|
|
01/15/2012 01:54:56 PM · #20 |
| OMG, the author NEVER said they would charge $6k for his photo, only that it cost him no less than $6k to eventually have what it took to take it. In other words, he's sick of people asking him for free pics, if they want a pic they either a) pay him a fair amount (most likely much less than $6k) or b) invest in the equipment and take it themselves. I read enough of the ignorance from the idiot posters on the linked website, I sure as heck didn't imagine I would be reading it here. And I generally agree with Judi that the Professional cares about the price of their photo, especially assuming the Pro has ONLY photography as an income, yet some amatuers DO care just don't yet have the portfolio to demand as much as they would care to. I have had to give away dozens of my pictures to some local bands in my area beause they post MY picture with MY name on their website: free exposure to a potential client base (i.e. other bands/local artists who might hire me for a shoot). I also work 40-80 hours a week as a contractor, which is physically and mentally demanding in itself, just so I can afford to live and get the rare chance to shoot when I'm totally exhausted and stay up til 2am editing when I have to be at work at 6am. Starting out takes sacrifice, emotional, temporal, physical, and financial sacrifice but it sure isn't because I don't care: I do it because I love it. |
|
|
|
01/15/2012 11:10:42 AM · #21 |
So would he take no less that 6k for the photo?
|
|
|
|
01/15/2012 03:13:16 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Too many people are missing the point here :<. |
Which in itself is a good reflection of the quality of the article. |
|
|
|
01/15/2012 01:54:42 AM · #23 |
| Too many people are missing the point here :<. |
|
|
|
01/14/2012 11:30:05 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Ok...maybe I need more coffee before I start typing on here but here goes. There has been great concern of late over how many amateur (or mommy photographers) are out there doing photo shoots on the cheap making it even more difficult for the industry.
After reading this thread I seem to be coming to a conclusion. I may be wrong...but it appears to me to be heading that way.
- People who regularly sell photos care about the price and the value of the photo.
- People who don't sell photos don't care about the price and the value of the photo.
- Equals one of the differences between an Amateur and a Professional Photographer.
The Professional relies on their income. Therefore they are not going to sell an image for 10c when it is worth a lot more, especially when they take into consideration what it has taken to create and polish that photo. |
judi, im not saying that the photo shouldnt be worth more than 33 cents, but if you were to calculate the cost of your photo that way, that is around the right price... sheesh hes implying any photo he took with his gear is worth $6,612 |
|
|
|
01/14/2012 09:33:56 PM · #25 |
Uh oh... Now I've crossed Judi, and I won't get anymore truffles.... :(
Actually, I think the people on this site truly understand the plight of the professional photographer, and what they're up against.
In making fun of the original post, I wasn't intentionally saying that I didn't care about pricing -- I was saying that the original post went about it the wrong way.
Yes, the cost of equipment plays into pricing. The time it takes to get to and from, the processing, etc. But just because the people have the equipment, doesn't mean that they're worth the price. I just thought that the site in question should have gone more into the hours of experimenting, learning, etc, and the fact that the typical mommy photographer, even with the equipment, couldn't reproduce it for twice as much. I'm sick of the "wow! Do you have a nice camera" when someone is impressed with my photos. Why don't we start selling our talent instead of our gear?
Judi can charge more than I can, because she has more talent, more experience, and more quality than I'll probably ever have.
It's not about the equipment. It's about the know how -- and this article completely and totally failed to even mention it.
That's why I laughed at it. |
|
