# I laff at the consumer photography industry. Does this affect your business?



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 14, 2014)

I understand that this forum is for the enthusiast, and for the most part, this place, 500px and flickr are homes to some outstanding photographers, but when it comes to photography as a service to consumers, it's a laughable industry. I know that there are some of you outstanding pro photographers out there, but the number of pseudo professionals far exceeds your kind. This isn't the only example that I can come up with, but I went to sell a lens to a "pro" photographer today. I handed the individual the lens to try on the camera, and the individual couldn't figure out how to align the red dots and in which direction to turn the lens to snap it in. After I mounted the lens for her, she accused my Canon lens of spinning in the wrong direction. I also looked at the photographer's robust website and social media pages, and all of her pictures were out of focus. ALL.

Do you as a professional photographer find this as a problem for your business development? I'm sure these pseudo photographers are undercutting you for what you are worth and producing results that you can only produce if you tried hard enough. I know I'm no pro, but can't this hoard of shooters not understand how to nail focus?

Just an observation.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 14, 2014)

If someone has a website on which all of the photos are out of focus, and that photographer begins to adversely affect my business, I will get out of the business.

If anything, such people will only help my business...


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 14, 2014)




----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 14, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


>



The more you beat it, the more tender it becomes.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 14, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Actually, I've found that it just gets really sore. :blushing::mrgreen:


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 14, 2014)

As long as she bought your lens who cares?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 14, 2014)

what's sad is a lot of people that look at the website wont even know the difference. And those are probably the "best " ones posted.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 14, 2014)

This thread makes me think of another thread I read earlier. . . . . .


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 14, 2014)

Julia Margaret Cameron


----------



## KmH (Apr 14, 2014)

In the retail photography business there are photographers - and there are fauxtographers.

Digital cameras have lowered the retail photography business entry bar.
The bar is now so low that many retail photographers produce a low quality product they price and sell like a commodity rather than producing  a high quality luxury product that is priced accordingly.

Consequently the 'churn' of new retail photography businesses at the entry level of the retail photography business is simply astounding.

However, we can't forget that 15% of the population controls 85% of all the disposable income retail photography businesses compete for.

So the key to having a successful retail photography business is attracting that 15% of the population that has 85% of all the disposable income.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 14, 2014)

why i admit i suck and stay a hobbiest so i don't be called a fauxtographer


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 14, 2014)

Recently I had to help a young pro photographer and show her how to change aperture on her entry level Canon ... I've never held a Canon camera before. She has huge ads up everywhere ... I'll admit, she has an 'eye' for a good composition and will get it but what irks me is those that put the horse before the cart. I mean come on, learn photography and your gear, BEFORE you open a business!


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 14, 2014)

Just as there are fauxtographers out there booking weddings and sittings, there are hack electricians out there wiring houses.

I use their wanna-ba status against them and sell my capabilities, knowledge, background, etc. and make a helluva living.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 14, 2014)

I set my rates very high...I don't care if she/he/they get 100 jobs to mine.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 14, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> This thread makes me think of another thread I read earlier. . . . . .



The one entilted "Deju Vu, Revisited?"

Lol


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 14, 2014)

Photography has changed. I had lunch with 4 professional photographers the other day and we briefly talked about it, it's really becoming a boring subject. One of them had been approached by a "professional" wedding photographer that was having trouble getting photos of the bride and groom sharp when they were walking out of the church, he asked what f-stop was she using, the answer "what is an f-stop" This is the new generation of "professional pretenders" 

It is only going to get worse. I've spent too many hours arguing, discussing and dealing with amateurs that want to shoot like professionals but aren't interested in putting in any time to understand what they have to know, to do the job.  I've stopped worrying about it, stressing over how I have to change the way I do business in order to stay ahead(most of these comments come from amateurs)  I really just don't care anymore what anyone else does with the camera's they buy.  It has affected my business, it will continue to affect my business, and it will continue to affect every professional photographer, even the ones that say "My business is better than ever" Maybe the area they work has fewer photographers, or they are the ones undercutting, there is always a reason why. 

I'm glad that I came through the best years of photography, when quality meant something to even the average person.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 14, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > This thread makes me think of another thread I read earlier. . . . . .
> ...


Not quite, but I'll be nice. . . . .


----------



## bribrius (Apr 14, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Photography has changed. I had lunch with 4 professional photographers the other day and we briefly talked about it, it's really becoming a boring subject. One of them had been approached by a "professional" wedding photographer that was having trouble getting photos of the bride and groom sharp when they were walking out of the church, he asked what f-stop was she using, the answer "what is an f-stop" This is the new generation of "professional pretenders"
> 
> It is only going to get worse. I've spent too many hours arguing, discussing and dealing with amateurs that want to shoot like professionals but aren't interested in putting in any time to understand what they have to know, to do the job. I've stopped worrying about it, stressing over how I have to change the way I do business in order to stay ahead(most of these comments come from amateurs) I really just don't care anymore what anyone else does with the camera's they buy. It has affected my business, it will continue to affect my business, and it will continue to affect every professional photographer, even the ones that say "My business is better than ever" Maybe the area they work has fewer photographers, or they are the ones undercutting, there is always a reason why.
> 
> I'm glad that I came through the best years of photography, when quality meant something to even the average person.


odd question i know. Instead of taking advice from amateur photographers, who clearly don't know ****. have you considered discussing with a business advisor ? Or is that something you don't believe would help your situation?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 14, 2014)

bribrius said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Photography has changed. I had lunch with 4 professional photographers the other day and we briefly talked about it, it's really becoming a boring subject. One of them had been approached by a "professional" wedding photographer that was having trouble getting photos of the bride and groom sharp when they were walking out of the church, he asked what f-stop was she using, the answer "what is an f-stop" This is the new generation of "professional pretenders"
> ...



I don't take advice from amateurs, I talk to other professional photographers about some things. I've been in this business for 35 years.

The comment about changing the way I work, is the usual answer to so many things on this forum, it's the usual adapt or die statements.  I've made changes, I've adapted to the changing times, but a person can only make so many changes before losing the identity of the business.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 14, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > This thread makes me think of another thread I read earlier. . . . . .
> ...


Isn't he that French guy?  You know, the brother of Faux Photographer.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 14, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


you have me totally curious now. if you wanted to start your own thread, explaining the situation and changes you have made i would read it. Probably wouldn't have any helpful advice but you peaked my interest id read it.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 14, 2014)

KmH said:


> In the retail photography business there are photographers - and there are fauxtographers.
> 
> Digital cameras have lowered the retail photography business entry bar.
> The bar is now so low that many retail photographers produce a low quality product they price and sell like a commodity rather than producing  a high quality luxury product that is priced accordingly.
> ...



The key is to be working all the time. Whether or not your getting paid $100.00 or $1,000.00, you need to be working...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 14, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> I set my rates very high...I don't care if she/he/they get 100 jobs to mine.



All else being equal, I would rather have ten $1,000.00 jobs than one $10,000.00 job.

With the latter, I could get a referral. With the former, I could get ten...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 14, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> The comment about changing the way I work, is the usual answer to so many things on this forum, it's the usual adapt or die statements.  I've made changes, I've adapted to the changing times, but a person can only make so many changes before losing the identity of the business.



I hate to rain on your parade but, with regards to the original post, if you're changing how you do business because someone else gets business with out of focus photos on their website, you're cutting your own throat...


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > The comment about changing the way I work, is the usual answer to so many things on this forum, it's the usual adapt or die statements.  I've made changes, I've adapted to the changing times, but a person can only make so many changes before losing the identity of the business.
> ...



What I find more amusing is that these people's clients will give them rave reviews.


----------



## runnah (Apr 14, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> I had lunch with 4 professional photographers the other day



Haha so did you chew and screw or did everyone just order bread and water?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 14, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


  It's the Social Media Deception&#8482;.   It starts when you buy and SLR and start posting images on Facebook.  Your friends and family all tell you how great the images are.   You get super excited about your own awesomeness and decide it's time to start a business, because being a photographer is so easy, and _glamorous_. :roll:   Advertise on Craigslist for $50 (wow, I'm like, totally getting paid to take pics!  I'm AWESOME!)    Book a photoshoot for noon on a Saturday.  Have the pictures turn out horrible.   Sign up for a photography forum to get help when the client asks for their $50 back.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 14, 2014)

Mockery mainly makes the mocker look small.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 14, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Mockery mainly makes the mocker look small.



Not really.  In my line of work if someone behaved they way these people do they'd be sued into oblivion.   It's a topic  that's been beaten to death (hence my first post in this thread), yet as I said, all the attaboys people get from friends and family is often what convinces them to hang out their shingle.   I've watched it happen to a few of my own friends.    As a matter of fact, I have a family member right now that is in the new camera "everything I shoot is awesome" phase, and yes, she's looking to monetize her snapshots now.  It's not mockery, it's reality.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 14, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Mockery mainly makes the mocker look small.
> ...




I agree. In my line of business, it is the same. I'm B2B, but when it comes to creative services, people think they can become professionals after learning how to change the color of the brush on MS Paint. It is reality, and it is reality that their clients end up spending more money in the long run to get things done properly as they should have been the first time around. Either way, they're going to pay it-- in the beginning or the end. This would not happen if those that are incapable would cease practicing their delusion.

PS - This applies to many areas of life and work, not just photography. It just so happens that this is a photography forum. I also frequent the bodybuilding forum. It's near equivalent is the one kid that went to the gym one time and posting flexing selfies afterwards.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 14, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Mockery mainly makes the mocker look small.
> ...


I had a friend that said "If you are any good at something, get paid to do it". 

Decent rider? Don't rent horses, don't even own. Get owners to pay you to exercise their horses, or to train them. Good at martial arts? Teach.

Perhaps the issue is finding *how* to monetize your particular skill level. I couldn't shoot a wedding, but I'd bet I could go shoot used cars for the local dealership. I'd bet I could teach a beginner's class in camera operation (maybe not, as they start asking about things other than what the buttons do). I could go work second or third camera for a real photographer. In all cases I would learn what I'm doing better, and someone else would be paying me for it (perhaps not much, but it beats me paying others)


----------



## Derrel (Apr 14, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> Recently I had to help a young pro photographer and show her how to change aperture on her entry level Canon ... I've never held a Canon camera before. She has huge ads up everywhere ... I'll admit, she has an 'eye' for a good composition and will get it but what irks me is those that put the horse before the cart. I mean come on, learn photography and your gear, BEFORE you open a business!



YOU can admit that it was Jane Momtographer...we know that you know her, Bill! loll

Giggles and Cutie Pumpkins Photography


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 14, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> I had a friend that said "If you are any good at something, get paid to do it".  Decent rider? Don't rent horses, don't even own. Get owners to pay you to exercise their horses, or to train them. Good at martial arts? Teach.  Perhaps the issue is finding *how* to monetize your particular skill level. I couldn't shoot a wedding, but I'd bet I could go shoot used cars for the local dealership. I'd bet I could teach a beginner's class in camera operation (maybe not, as they start asking about things other than what the buttons do). I could go work second or third camera for a real photographer. In all cases I would learn what I'm doing better, and someone else would be paying me for it (perhaps not much, but it beats me paying others)



I agree jerry, but if you are NOT good at something, why commercialize it? Keep it in the family and friends referrel circle and build out from there while gaining experience instead of fooling others into believing that you are a professional. It's ok to find a start in anything, but unless it has real value don't make it appear to have it.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 14, 2014)

Jerry Love said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


 That's kinda the point, you have to be good at it first. 





Jerry Love said:


> Perhaps the issue is finding *how* to monetize your particular skill level. I couldn't shoot a wedding, but I'd bet I could go shoot used cars for the local dealership. I'd bet I could teach a beginner's class in camera operation (maybe not, as they start asking about things other than what the buttons do). I could go work second or third camera for a real photographer. In all cases I would learn what I'm doing better, and someone else would be paying me for it (perhaps not much, but it beats me paying others)


  This is where you and I would disagree.  If you don't have a firm grasp on what you're doing you shouldn't be teaching others to do it.   
 It's one thing to apprentice under someone else, which is still working for money while learning a craft, it's another to take money for work when you don't even know what you're doing.   What's worse is you're not really going to learn anything that way until things go really sideways, and then what you learn isn't going to be about photographic technique.      I used to have to deal with kids all the time who thought they were more than qualified to work in my shop because they were able to bolt a few tune up parts onto their cars.  When put to the real test they always failed.  Every time.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 14, 2014)

Way to completely miss the point. No surprise.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 14, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> Jerry Love said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


Good is a relative term. I'm good enough to do some things and not good enough to do others. By practice I become better.. buy work I get practice. The trick here is tailoring your work to your skill level. 

If you don't know dressage, you can't teach a dressage horse; but you can exercise a polo pony. 




> Jerry Love said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the issue is finding *how* to monetize your particular skill level. I couldn't shoot a wedding, but I'd bet I could go shoot used cars for the local dealership. I'd bet I could teach a beginner's class in camera operation (maybe not, as they start asking about things other than what the buttons do). I could go work second or third camera for a real photographer. In all cases I would learn what I'm doing better, and someone else would be paying me for it (perhaps not much, but it beats me paying others)
> ...


Re-review "your particular skill level" in my comment above. 

"Firm" is also a relative term. Many a 12-year-old has taught their parents everything from how to work the TiVo to how to text. They are not professionals. 

I understand the purpose and principle of every knob and button on every body I have. Still learning some of the settings (like about using multiple flashes to work above the shutter sync speed), and I still have a heck of a lot to learn about taking good photos (never mind how to actually manage a shoot); but I could certainly provide value to someone looking to learn how to operate a camera. 

How good do you think the people at the theme park taking your pic when you walk in are? I'll tell you: not very. But it's not hard under those conditions to take a functional picture, and a desirable one. So they have a skill which has value. I'm certainly not about to hire on as a minimum-wage theme-park employee to take pics of people walking in all day, but it's something I'm certainly skilled enough to accomplish already.


----------



## KmH (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> All else being equal, I would rather have ten $1,000.00 jobs than one $10,000.00 job.


How about 100 - $100 jobs to make $10,000.

I was looking at a new member's Facebook page today. They charge $100 for a 1 hour shoot that included a disc of 40 - 50 photos.

If they shoot 5 days a week and average 2 shoots a day it will take them 10 weeks (2.5 months) to do 100 shoots.
$10,000.00 / 2.5 months is $4000 a month.
But out of the $4000 comes all their personal and business expenses.
Federal and state taxes - $1000 a month
Business expenses $500 - $750 a month.

So lets say take home income is $2250 a month or $562.50 a week.

A 1 hour shoot is usually preceded and followed by a total of 3 additional hours of work, so the photographer is putting in 10 hours days (not counting travel time if all the shoots are on location).
 The 2 remaining days of the week (or working 5 - 13 hour days) the photographer does all the business tasks that need to be done to keep the business organized and running smoothly - another 16 hours of work.

Total hours worked for the week - 76 hours 
$562.50 / 76 hours = $7.40 per hour - right about minimum wage.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 14, 2014)

KmH said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > All else being equal, I would rather have ten $1,000.00 jobs than one $10,000.00 job.
> ...



Yeah, I figured that was coming. Why stop there? Why not figure it out for 1,000.00 $10.00 shoots?

It's possible to take anything to the point of absurdity. I wouldn't do 100 $100.00 jobs in lieu of a single $10,000.00. Sure, I could then stand to get 100 referrals, but the time issue is ridiculous...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Recently I had to help a young pro photographer and show her how to change aperture on her entry level Canon ... I've never held a Canon camera before. She has huge ads up everywhere ... I'll admit, she has an 'eye' for a good composition and will get it but what irks me is those that put the horse before the cart. I mean come on, learn photography and your gear, BEFORE you open a business!
> ...


oh my lord. i just caught myself reading that for near twenty minutes. i didn't know if i should laugh or cry. it was HARD to read. whoever writes that is hilarious.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Another absurdity: the idea that a 'tog that shoots $100 sessions spends 3 hours before AND after each session...I mean, c'mon...whatever happened to "Shoot and BURN, BABY!" ???


----------



## bribrius (Apr 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



forty photo  fifteen minutes.


----------



## Civchic (Apr 15, 2014)

There's another angle.  I'm just a beginner with a Rebel (LOL) but I'm learning.  People are the least of my interests, except my own family.  I have zero interest in monetizing my hobby, and even less interest in taking pictures of other people's children to make some money.  But as soon as people see halfway decent photos of your kids (and mine are mostly unposed snapshots - or, oops "lifestyle photography") they start saying "Ooh, you should start charging people!" or even "I'll pay you to take some pics of my kids!".

Seriously.  I have a job.  I don't want to spend my weekends chasing kids so I can make a couple hundred extra a month.  Duh.


----------



## Civchic (Apr 15, 2014)

And I meant to post this:

The Photography Teacher Nobody Wants


----------



## jenko (Apr 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> YOU can admit that it was Jane Momtographer...we know that you know her, Bill! loll
> 
> Giggles and Cutie Pumpkins Photography



Wow. I may have seen it all now.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> YOU can admit that it was Jane Momtographer...we know that you know her, Bill! loll  Giggles and Cutie Pumpkins Photography



Ok


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

Civchic said:


> And I meant to post this:
> 
> The Photography Teacher Nobody Wants




Experience doesn't mean much as a teacher at all. If you have a business selling photography as a service to people, and you don't understand the concept of focusing your pictures, no amount of experience is going to help you. The original topic isn't about people having friends asking to hire you for a session, as there is nothing wrong in getting paid if you and your customer sees the value in what you do, but to have a professional service and making a living from ANYTHING, one should be able to understand the foundation of what is good and what is not.

I spent thousands of dollars on my wedding for two seasoned "pros" to shoot my wedding. Their portfolio looked great, but when they shot our wedding, we decided not to use any of the photos, because they were so bad. My groom's man brought his camera and produced better results than my pro photographers. Sad really.


----------



## Civchic (Apr 15, 2014)

I agree with you completely.  Did you read the article?  I thought it pretty clearly said exactly what you're saying - you shouldn't be a "pro" anything until you've gained experience and knowledge at your craft.  I've had the same (actual) professional photographer taking pictures of my kids every six months or so since they were babies, and she's amazing.  The competition she puts up with from fauxtographers is crazy.  And there is serious legitimization - a local baby stuff store was having a big sale, and part of their promotion was $25 Easter photo sessions with a "professional local photographer".  Her promotional poster photo (you know, the absolute best photo you would choose) was overexposed and glaring - check out her website and it's all the same.  BUT a real store is advertising her, and you bet your bottom dollar people will line up for those $25 sessions.  And frame and hang those pictures.

You can't sell taste.  And people will think stuff is beautiful if you tell them it is and charge them for it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 15, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > The comment about changing the way I work, is the usual answer to so many things on this forum, it's the usual adapt or die statements. I've made changes, I've adapted to the changing times, but a person can only make so many changes before losing the identity of the business.
> ...



I haven't changed the way I do business because of all the entry level professionals. I have changed how I work my rates, I used to go with half/full day set rates, now I work out rates based on client budgets, I find a point that we can both work with.  I do have clients that I have been working with for years and the rates with them have stayed the same, or gone up.

I don't compete with amateurs, semi professionals, whatever they want to call themselves. There was a point when I was getting pissed off at clients that decided to go with weekend professionals that charged very little or would do things for free. These clients lost photo budgets due to cuts and had to go with what they could afford, which was not me shooting for free.  The result is that they have ended up with worthless pictures that in the end reflects how people see their business, and they don't care, so why should I.


----------



## runnah (Apr 15, 2014)

I find it funny that 99% of the folks commenting on this thread are not, will not and could not be half as successful as Scott. Yet they try and try to say he is wrong.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

Civchic said:


> I agree with you completely.  Did you read the article?  I thought it pretty clearly said exactly what you're saying - you shouldn't be a "pro" anything until you've gained experience and knowledge at your craft.  I've had the same (actual) professional photographer taking pictures of my kids every six months or so since they were babies, and she's amazing.  The competition she puts up with from fauxtographers is crazy.  And there is serious legitimization - a local baby stuff store was having a big sale, and part of their promotion was $25 Easter photo sessions with a "professional local photographer".  Her promotional poster photo (you know, the absolute best photo you would choose) was overexposed and glaring - check out her website and it's all the same.  BUT a real store is advertising her, and you bet your bottom dollar people will line up for those $25 sessions.  And frame and hang those pictures.  You can't sell taste.  And people will think stuff is beautiful if you tell them it is and charge them for it.



That's not what I said. Did you read my post? I said experience is bologna. The pro photographers on here and the ones on social media outlets that create stunning images have something that NO amount of experience and technical knowledge can ever give-- talent. Sure, experience in the rights hands will teach you what to do and what not to do, as well as when to break the rules, but it doesn't help if you can't grasp the basics. Not everyone can learn. If you go out and invest the money into a high dollar camera with lenses and spend the money on opening a business, focus is something that you shouldn't need to be taught. Isn't that the basis of portrait photography for the most part?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 15, 2014)

Thanks. Everyone has an opinion and I respect that.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 15, 2014)

runnah said:


> I find it funny that 99% of the folks commenting on this thread are not, will not and could not be half as successful as Scott. Yet they try and try to say he is wrong.



Isn't success relative? I mean, if I manage not to be homeless and sick by the time I'm 65, I'd consider myself pretty successful.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 15, 2014)

So I clicked on the Petapixel link someone posted and I realized the newest article today is pretty apt to this thread.

Hire a Photography Student to Photograph Your Wedding, Make a College Kid Happy


----------



## runnah (Apr 15, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I find it funny that 99% of the folks commenting on this thread are not, will not and could not be half as successful as Scott. Yet they try and try to say he is wrong.
> ...



Well considering that for 99.9% of the folks on here photography is a hobby/side business I'd say he and others like him are successful.

What is funny/sad is that some folks here post garbage yet talk a big game about how they are experts about this and that.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

runnah said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Just call them out? I'm here using this as one resource to learn, and I will remain a hobbyist, but it doesn't blind me from seeing what's happening out there.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I'm unfamiliar with that concept.

I'm also unfamiliar with the concept of spending an additional six hours on a one hour shoot...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

runnah said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


all in who decides to open a business maybe. And maybe it has nothing to do with knowledge or experience? Look at all the hobbyists around that have huge talent and years of experience, but choose not to have a business. All that talent, knowledge, just used for their own personal use.
Then you have someone pick up a cam one day and start a business. 
i think the business side of this has very little to do with the photography side, oddly enough. you can be great working on cars, and choose not to open a garage. And suck, working on cars, and open a garage. What they need to open a business is more business skills, the ability or willingness to open one, and just enough knowledge of photography to not get easily identified as being clueless. 
i paid to have photos of one of my kids a few years back by a local photographer. They suck. what is sad is i didn't even realize it until a couple years went by and i was staring at them. 

The benefits of hiring someone that has been in business for twenty years, is by then, you figure someone doing it for twenty years and making a living on MUST know something.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 15, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Based on the average from others I've talked to, it's something like 2-3 hours for every hour of shoot time. Like everything depends on the quality of the images coming out of the camera, the number of images and the skill of the person doing the editing. For me I think it's probably pretty close for an average 350-400 image 1 Hour shoot and that would include putting an ID name on each image.

6 hours on a 1 hour shoot, I suppose if you're editing a thousand plus images.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 15, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> 6 hours on a 1 hour shoot, I suppose if you're editing a thousand plus images.



Which would equate to one image taken every 16 seconds so, yeah, that ain't happenin'...


----------



## Civchic (Apr 15, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Civchic said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you completely. Did you read the article? I thought it pretty clearly said exactly what you're saying - you shouldn't be a "pro" anything until you've gained experience and knowledge at your craft. I've had the same (actual) professional photographer taking pictures of my kids every six months or so since they were babies, and she's amazing. The competition she puts up with from fauxtographers is crazy. And there is serious legitimization - a local baby stuff store was having a big sale, and part of their promotion was $25 Easter photo sessions with a "professional local photographer". Her promotional poster photo (you know, the absolute best photo you would choose) was overexposed and glaring - check out her website and it's all the same. BUT a real store is advertising her, and you bet your bottom dollar people will line up for those $25 sessions. And frame and hang those pictures. You can't sell taste. And people will think stuff is beautiful if you tell them it is and charge them for it.
> ...



For the first part, I completely disagree with you.  Some (very few) people have natural talent.  Those people are VERY LUCKY.  Some people have a little bit of aptitude for something (with photography - a good eye for colour, an ability to "see" the photo, technical skills at manipulating and remembering the data, etc) and a bit of enjoyment of that something, and they work hard for a long time, or work extremely hard for a shorter time, to develop a talent.  Perhaps not to reach the level of grandmaster of the something, but enough to be respectable.  That is experience.

Maybe I feel that way because I am a talentless hack who is actually pretty good at learning stuff, and don't want to think I'm wasting my time and all this money at something I can never become talented at.  LOL.

For the second part, about people needing to know how to focus before they invest in glass and hang out a shingle?  Not everybody has a brain, and those people are going to either subsist on crumbs handed to them by equally blind people, or they're going to go out of business and blame the world.  <shrug>


----------



## jenko (Apr 15, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> So I clicked on the Petapixel link someone posted and I realized the newest article today is pretty apt to this thread.
> 
> Hire a Photography Student to Photograph Your Wedding, Make a College Kid Happy



Holy crap, the 3rd shot down has the Dutch Tilt! 

What are the odds?!


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

Civchic said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > Civchic said:
> ...




Sorry, I hope I didn't come off as attacking you, and I've looked at your FLICKR. You're no talentless hack, but I disagree with you that very few people are naturally talented. A lot of people are, just at different levels and at what opportunity the talent was allowed to be nurtured. Some people are prodigies and do not need nurturing and can do it without support, but just because most people aren't prodigies doesn't mean they are not talented. You can learn about composition and lighting all you want, but some people just can't get it- perhaps it's the brainless argument of yours.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> So I clicked on the Petapixel link someone posted and I realized the newest article today is pretty apt to this thread.
> 
> Hire a Photography Student to Photograph Your Wedding, Make a College Kid Happy


im not so sure i disagree. suppose ill say why. i didn't pay a dime for a photographer at my wedding. A "enthusiast" in our church volunteered to do it. I actually didn't pay a dime for any of our wedding, reception or anything else other than a little for a honeymoon. All volunteers. Even the brides dress was hand made.
how did the photographs come out? Pretty good considering. Nothing fancy, not extravagant. But the moments were captured, all in focus, and the woman friend in our church that volunteered to do it clearly cared about the images. If it was a guy, not so sure they would have come out that good we aren't quite as sentimental.
The problem with spending a lot of money is this: when that is all said and done, you just spent your down payment on the house and hurt the couple starting off financially.
i NEVER advocate people spending a lot on weddings unless they really have the cash. But ive seen some seriously expensive weddings, only to be divorced a few years later. The money spent has little to do with the outcome except maybe to put a added stress financially on a new couple. And many people get more caught up in the wedding, than the vows. The divorce attorney can cost more than the photographer...

And for the record, for a wedding that didn't cost a dime. Twenty people putting in time and efforts it was GEORGEOUS.  I really don't think anyone could expect more.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

bribrius said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > So I clicked on the Petapixel link someone posted and I realized the newest article today is pretty apt to this thread.
> ...



I'm still married...8 years now.

Back to the topic, as in every service or good, there are different levels of service and results. That I understand. Not everyone is looking for or wanting to afford the services provided by top notch talent, but top notch talent has a market of their own. If professionals can't understand this, I can almost guarantee that they are losing out on a lot of time and money targeting the wrong audience. It's like W Hotels doing promos at the local buy here pay here lot. So there is a market for photography students to shoot weddings. Not every couple want or can afford their wedding photos to look like they're wealthy people. And let's face it, when I look at a stranger's facebook and see high quality work in their photos, I assume they are at least upper middle class.

The point I was trying to make however is that if you don't even have a brain to know that your pictures are all out of focus or how to put a lens on your camera, just gtfo.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


in principle i agree. totally agree. The bold part, not so much. i know too many millionaires with ****ty photos. And looking at their facebook pages you wouldn't know they are millionaires at all.  People in debt up to their eyeballs can still yank out another credit card and buy a camera or hire a photographer. its all looks. Priorities. i have a aunt that is a multimillionaire and has some of the worst photos I've ever seen (but she doesn't appear to care). She also refuses to buy new cars and only buys a few year old Cadillacs. so if you saw her, you probably wouldn't think she was even barely middle class. 
a market to concentrate on: yuppies that like to live above their means and ring up debts. :mrgreen: new doctors, lawyers, with wives with large spending habits...


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

bribrius said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



I didn't say I assumed people with poor pictures to be poor.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > IronMaskDuval said:
> ...


true. It is too bad one couldn't pull the records from local luxury car dealers or the dmv to see who is leasing a 60k+ car. That would make a decent client list...


EDIT: actually thinking about this. i bet there is a way to do this. i used to pay a data company to send me disks for everyone that pulled building permits over five states for a client list. They would weed them out for me by the amount of the construction $, number of permits pulled by a individual or company. Basically i shot for anything on the upper end 500k up with multiple permits over a year period for a client list. I think the data company charged a couple hundred bucks every three months but they really did their homework and the info was all organized beforehand for me. Then i sent brochures, price lists, set up meetings, cold called to gain accounts.
i bet you could do this with photography some how.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

im going to shut up now. As i have now admitted i don't know much about photography and also admitted i used to sort do sales and outside sales. so im probably becoming very unliked.


----------



## Civchic (Apr 15, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Sorry, I hope I didn't come off as attacking you, and I've looked at your FLICKR. You're no talentless hack, but I disagree with you that very few people are naturally talented. A lot of people are, just at different levels and at what opportunity the talent was allowed to be nurtured. Some people are prodigies and do not need nurturing and can do it without support, but just because most people aren't prodigies doesn't mean they are not talented. You can learn about composition and lighting all you want, but some people just can't get it- perhaps it's the brainless argument of yours.



Oh, no!  Not feeling attacked at all.    And thanks!  I do see your point, I think we are sort of saying the same things from different directions.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 15, 2014)

jenko said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > So I clicked on the Petapixel link someone posted and I realized the newest article today is pretty apt to this thread.
> ...


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 15, 2014)

I have to go with VintageSnaps on this one, the real big difference is the ability to produce quality shots with consistency. Funny thing about that article, the first shot looked like it was a bit off kilter and needed to be rotated, and for that matter so did the second - and I have to be honest I wasn't all that thrilled by the composition in shot of the ring bearer - so I'm kind of hoping those weren't meant as examples of what a "real pro" can do.. lol.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 15, 2014)

I have no idea why socio-economic status turned up in the discussion. It seems hardly germane.

Also, photography is not hard. It is easy. It can be taught in a matter of hours by a competent teacher.

Fredric Roberts Photography Workshops Giving Students a Voice Through Photography


----------



## table1349 (Apr 15, 2014)

bribrius said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > So I clicked on the Petapixel link someone posted and I realized the newest article today is pretty apt to this thread.
> ...


Ah  heck just ditch the prom queen or in this case the bride queen. pay her limo, give her cash, hire another photographer, whatever. But DITCH the wedding queen.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 15, 2014)

I have no idea why socio-economic status turned up in the discussion. It seems hardly germane.

Also, photography is not hard. It is easy. It can be taught in a matter of hours by a competent teacher.

Fredric Roberts Photography Workshops Giving Students a Voice Through Photography


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


lol. i look at everything from a market standpoint, changing markets and market forces. Economics major and interest i cant help it.  My question would be, if a photography business ever hit the nasdaq  (or hell i could probably find one trading bulletin as a penny stock) how would it trade on opening day and what would it be offered at. since most stock prices are gauged on future earnings and growth prospects...


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 15, 2014)

:chatty::chatty::violin: Life just isn't fair.  Shame on all the unskilled, uneducated, unpracticed fools trying to make a buck by forcing me to buy unfocused photos at a bargain price.

I'm not insensitive; I did shed a tear when Bubba won The Masters.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> :chatty::chatty::violin: Life just isn't fair.  Shame on all the unskilled, uneducated, unpracticed fools trying to make a buck by forcing me to buy unfocused photos at a bargain price.
> 
> I'm not insensitive; I did shed a tear when Bubba won The Masters.



violin's a bit large


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 15, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> :chatty::chatty::violin: Life just isn't fair. Shame on all the unskilled, uneducated, unpracticed fools trying to make a buck by forcing me to buy unfocused photos at a bargain price.
> 
> I'm not insensitive; I did shed a tear when Bubba won The Masters.



You would think with a name like Bubba he'd be driving for Nascar, not playing golf.  Well maybe he''s not a junior.  That would explain it.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > :chatty::chatty::violin: Life just isn't fair. Shame on all the unskilled, uneducated, unpracticed fools trying to make a buck by forcing me to buy unfocused photos at a bargain price.
> ...



Don't know bout where you guys live, but here, we drive our carts around like race cars, all the while double fisting cans of bud light. That's right! I said bud light. Now that got me thinking. I sure as heck don't miss the college days. We'd wake up early Saturday and Sunday morning with opening tee time and start drinking right off. I can't tell you how many balls and clubs we've lost.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...



still do a couple times a year. i suck at golf but half the fun is driving around in the cart, losing the balls and the drinking. just being one with nature while you pee behind the trees. Its exciting too when you go in the woods looking for your ball, and find ten more. Then you know you aren't alone. Just don't pick up any that look wet.


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 15, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> :chatty::chatty::violin: Life just isn't fair. Shame on all the unskilled, uneducated, unpracticed fools trying to make a buck by forcing me to buy unfocused photos at a bargain price.
> 
> I'm not insensitive; I did shed a tear when Bubba won The Masters.



Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. As a New Yorker, I can't tell you how many successful businesses I've seen started by people just off the boat who couldn't speak a word of English. They were coming to America where everyone is successful, so they were told. So they put up a shingle and got to work providing a service that people wanted at the right price. The bottom line was, they weren't afraid. They didn't know you couldn't succeed. 

Neither should you. So get to work.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 15, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. As a New Yorker, I can't tell you how many successful businesses I've seen started by people just off the boat who couldn't speak a word of English. They were coming to America where everyone is successful, so they were told. So they put up a shingle and got to work providing a service that people wanted at the right price. The bottom line was, they weren't afraid. They didn't know you couldn't succeed.  Neither should you. So get to work.



That's a false analogy, Alan. Many of these people came with skills that allow them to open shop and be successful, and some open shops that do not require any other skill than business acumen. If you can't focus, all you're doing his ripping people off. It has nothing to do with hard work.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I have no idea why socio-economic status turned up in the discussion. It seems hardly germane.  Also, photography is not hard. It is easy. It can be taught in a matter of hours by a competent teacher.  Fredric Roberts Photography Workshops Giving Students a Voice Through Photography



I can also learn to cook in a few hours but that doesn't mean what I make will be edible lol


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 15, 2014)

> It has nothing to do with hard work.



You're very mistaken.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

Go look at the work. Roberts has children in third world countries shooting work in a matter of hours which is better than anything most of the self congratulatory mockers on this forum will ever make.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> You're very mistaken.


 focusing has nothing to do with hard work. You are mistaking


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Go look at the work. Roberts has children in third world countries shooting work in a matter of hours which is better than anything most of the self congratulatory mockers on this forum will ever make.


  Still not the point here as I have said that people are capable of producing great work without knowing any technical knowledge or being new to photography. That is not the point of the op.  The point is that if you commercialize your work, you need to know the basics of your business. If your product is all out of focus and you charge money anyway, you are morally bankrupted.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 16, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> I agree jerry, but if you are NOT good at something, why commercialize it? Keep it in the family and friends referrel circle and build out from there while gaining experience instead of fooling others into believing that you are a professional. It's ok to find a start in anything, but unless it has real value don't make it appear to have it.



The reason you commercialize it is because there's a customer for it. It's just that simple.

Somewhere, there's probably a segment of society which would buy out of focus pictures. I don't understand it but, considering some of the garbage I see being sold these days, it wouldn't surprise me. But if everyone with a camera is taking perfectly focused photos, the customer base which wants out of focus photos isn't being served. 

If they're itching to spend their money on out of focus photos, why not make them available?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

It may come as a surprise to you, but after 6 pages, there are sometimes multiple threads of conversation occurring.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Somewhere, there's probably a segment of society which would buy out of focus pictures. I don't understand it but, considering some of the garbage I see being sold these days, it wouldn't surprise me. But if everyone with a camera is taking perfectly focused photos, the customer base which wants out of focus photos isn't being served.
> 
> If they're itching to spend their money on out of focus photos, why not make them available?



Interestingly, the idea that pictures should be in sharp focus is a relatively modern idea. What makes it especially interesting is that in this modern era, we have people working away to take pictures of people that are in crisp focus with modern lenses that are quite close, by historical standards, to optically perfect.

THEN the same photographer spends a bunch of time and effort farting around in photoshop dealing with the consequences of all this, smoothing skin, reducing blemishes, warming up colors, and so on.

Best of all, this self-same person, if a regular poster on TPF at least, is likely to extol the virtues of "getting it right in camera"

Huh?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.



And yet people still claim it smells "sweet". Not sure what that is all about.



> Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment.



Right, because if there is one thing Satan needs, it's another lawyer.. lol



> As a New Yorker, I can't tell you how many successful businesses I've seen started by people just off the boat who couldn't speak a word of English. They were coming to America where everyone is successful, so they were told. So they put up a shingle and got to work providing a service that people wanted at the right price. The bottom line was, they weren't afraid. They didn't know you couldn't succeed.
> 
> Neither should you. So get to work.



Well I'm not a pro photographer and I won't ever be one, so for me I guess the subject is less personal than it is for some. My living doesn't rely on taking pictures, for me it's just something I do as a hobby. But I can understand why people who spent a lot of time and effort aquiring the kind of skill it takes to produce really professional quality photos reliably suddenly find themselves in a world where everybody and their brother thinks they can pick up a camera and start charging money for the same service with no skill and no experience.

I guess the thinking is if there were no fauxtographers out there then there would be more work for the actual pros, and to a certain extent I get where they are coming from - I spent a lot of years in the IT industry and more than a few running my own small business, and it was pretty irritating when I'd give a guy a quote for some work and he'd say, "Well my brother in law knows about computers, and he's going to charge me a lot less". 

Well that may have been true, but I'd have to try to explain to them that if they pay there brother in law half what they would pay me they would end up with a final result that would be pretty close to worthless and that they'd just have to pay me even more to come in and fix it later. Naturally I tried to be a little more diplomatic about the whole thing than that but in essence this was more or less what I would have to try to relate to the client.

But really I think the biggest frustation for me back in those days was dealing with clients that had been taken by a lot of the less knowledgable, less reputable people who advertised their services much cheaper than I did - they were very gunshy about hiring anybody to do any IT work for them at all because they'd already had such a terrible experience the first time around. Folks like that really did give the rest of us a really bad name, and it wasn't always much fun trying to overcome a clients misgivings after an experience like that one.

So yes, very happy I got out of IT and running my own business and very happy to be working for someone else again. I like knowing that I get paid on the 1st and the 15th and that my check will be $x each time. But I can certainly understand why folks get so frustrated with people who hang out a shingle with no experience and no real clue what they are doing.


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Best of all, this self-same person, if a regular poster on TPF at least, is likely to extol the virtues of "getting it right in camera"


 I'm not in the "getting it right in camera" buisiness, but you cant fix a missed focus in post.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.
> ...


you worked on peoples home computers?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you worked on peoples home computers?



Yup.. home computers, small businesses, even a couple of larger buisnesses.  I'd setup networks, fix laptops, printers, pretty much whatever needed to be done.  Glad I got out of it though, just not a good field of endeavor with a lot of future potential, at least not in my local area.    We've got a couple of different trade schools here such as Gateway and ITT tech that are cranking out hundreds of graduates with 2 year IT degrees year after year, and the job market here is flooded with them.

When Compusa came to town I remember going in one day and looking for a couple of monitors, ran into a guy in the same aisle and he was looking for a printer, since all the sales guys were busy we got to chatting and I asked him about what he was looking to do with it and made a couple of recommendations.  The manager overheard our conversation and asked me if I might want to come work there as a sales associate, said he thought I'd be pretty good at it - I told him I was making pretty good money where I was but I might think about a part time gig if we could work out the hours, then he asked me where I got my college degree.  He was pretty shocked to learn I didn't have one.

He explained that I needed one or he couldn't hire me.  I was fairly surprised, I mean it was a slightly above minimum wage sales job with no benefits - and he explained that whenever they had a sales job come open he'd get usually on average a 1000+ resume's for the one position, and 90% of them had degrees from either Gateway or ITT Tech.. lol.  So we parted ways there and my career at CompUsa never came to fruition - but of course they closed there doors a few years back so I guess that might have been for the best.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2014)

All this boring IT talk is making the lure of those $20-$25 Facebook sessions sound veeeeeeeeeeery sexy right now!!!


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you worked on peoples home computers?
> ...


you know what I could never figure out? on my ventures fixing personal computers for beer money. is when I went to someones house, they compared my rates to the geek squad. Im pretty sure the geek squad people knew more than I did. But in most cases when I left the person ended up with the same or better result and I was scratching my head on why the geek squad quoted so much to do something so simple. Other thing is if I hadn't fixed it, and had to go back. I didn't recharge for another house call. Figuring I should have caught it the first time my own fault. I think everyone else did. Other is methodologies. "look. I can wipe the drive overnight, come back and install everything again tomorrow and ill have a couple hours of actual work in this and it will spend a day updating. Or, you can pay me to sit here all day by the hour and mess with your six hundred dollar computer trying to fix it". Other thing was programs, seems everyone tried to sell programs while they were there to make extra money. where I was pretty much to the point "you don't need that". so guess I was on the otherside of that coin. And really, a couple hours, hit a few keys. usually the programs do all the work its more a matter of just letting it run. why sit there and watch it? Geek squad, make a big deal out of it, print reports, decipher. start billing and inevitably probably charge to reload windows anyway. Me , walk in, yank the personal stuff off it, throw kill disc in it. walk away. Reload later. If i couldn't figure it out in the error log or on a computer check (run that for a few hours and walk away) i pretty much just killed it. 
But that is capitalism. it sorts it all out for you so you don't have to understand it. Hardly a computer ace but people kept calling me and I never advertised.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Yup.. home computers, small businesses, even a couple of larger buisnesses.  I'd setup networks, fix laptops, printers, pretty much whatever needed to be done.  Glad I got out of it though, just not a good field of endeavor with a lot of future potential, at least not in my local area.    We've got a couple of different trade schools here such as Gateway and ITT tech that are cranking out hundreds of graduates with 2 year IT degrees year after year, and the job market here is flooded with them.  When Compusa came to town I remember going in one day and looking for a couple of monitors, ran into a guy in the same aisle and he was looking for a printer, since all the sales guys were busy we got to chatting and I asked him about what he was looking to do with it and made a couple of recommendations.  The manager overheard our conversation and asked me if I might want to come work there as a sales associate, said he thought I'd be pretty good at it - I told him I was making pretty good money where I was but I might think about a part time gig if we could work out the hours, then he asked me where I got my college degree.  He was pretty shocked to learn I didn't have one.  He explained that I needed one or he couldn't hire me.  I was fairly surprised, I mean it was a slightly above minimum wage sales job with no benefits - and he explained that whenever they had a sales job come open he'd get usually on average a 1000+ resume's for the one position, and 90% of them had degrees from either Gateway or ITT Tech.. lol.  So we parted ways there and my career at CompUsa never came to fruition - but of course they closed there doors a few years back so I guess that might have been for the best.



Ladd at that manager.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

My cats don't pay well.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2014)

Braineack said:


> My cats don't pay well.



But they are a hell of a lot more amusing than talk about fixing peoples' computers for beer money...


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Go look at the work. Roberts has children in third world countries shooting work in a matter of hours which is better than anything most of the self congratulatory mockers on this forum will ever make.



Depends on your perspective. Is it "better" because the work itself is really good, or is it good because of the novelty of seeing scenes from an exotic place shot by children in third-world countries? 

It's kind of like celebrity portrait photographers. A lot of the time, the portraits are pretty standard or even kind of sub-par in terms of technical quality, but since it's George Clooney, it gets posted around on the internet about how awesome these portraits of famous people are. If you put a plain Jane in that portrait scheme, it would just seem like another "meh, it's good I guess" photo that doesn't mean much except maybe to the subject and the photographer.

Some of the photos from Roberts students are indeed pretty good, but if I were to replace them with the American equivalent to that situation I probably wouldn't perceive them as being as good because it's too familiar to me.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Go look at the work. Roberts has children in third world countries shooting work in a matter of hours which is better than anything most of the self congratulatory mockers on this forum will ever make.




I looked it up on Google, "Roberts photos by kids".....

Roberts photos by kids - Google Search


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you know what I could never figure out? on my ventures fixing personal computers for beer money. is when I went to someones house, they compared my rates to the geek squad. Im pretty sure the geek squad people knew more than I did. But in most cases when I left the person ended up with the same or better result and I was scratching my head on why the geek squad quoted so much to do something so simple. Other thing is if I hadn't fixed it, and had to go back. I didn't recharge for another house call. Figuring I should have caught it the first time my own fault. I think everyone else did. Other is methodologies. "look. I can wipe the drive overnight, come back and install everything again tomorrow and ill have a couple hours of actual work in this and it will spend a day updating. Or, you can pay me to sit here all day by the hour and mess with your six hundred dollar computer trying to fix it". Other thing was programs, seems everyone tried to sell programs while they were there to make extra money. where I was pretty much to the point "you don't need that". so guess I was on the otherside of that coin. And really, a couple hours, hit a few keys. usually the programs do all the work its more a matter of just letting it run. why sit there and watch it? Geek squad, make a big deal out of it, print reports, decipher. start billing and inevitably probably charge to reload windows anyway. Me , walk in, yank the personal stuff off it, throw kill disc in it. walk away. Reload later. If i couldn't figure it out in the error log or on a computer check (run that for a few hours and walk away) i pretty much just killed it.
> But that is capitalism. it sorts it all out for you so you don't have to understand it. Hardly a computer ace but people kept calling me and I never advertised.



I hear ya - Geek Squad has to charge more, they've got a lot more overhead. I didn't have a fleet of Volkswagons with snazzy paint jobs, for example.. lol. Funny thing is I still get calls from folks wanting me to fix stuff and I closed shop years ago. I guess computer techs are a lot like auto mechanics, once you find one that isn't in business just to squeeze every last dime you have out of your wallet you tend to stick with them.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Go look at the work. Roberts has children in third world countries shooting work in a matter of hours which is better than anything most of the self congratulatory mockers on this forum will ever make.
> ...



So this self congratulatory mocker thing, do I need to apply for that?  Do we get badges?  I like badges.. lol


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I have no idea why socio-economic status turned up in the discussion. It seems hardly germane.
> 
> Also, photography is not hard. It is easy. It can be taught in a matter of hours by a competent teacher.
> 
> Fredric Roberts Photography Workshops Giving Students a Voice Through Photography



I don't find holding a camera difficult at all, in fact find it very easy to do, it didn't take me more than a couple of decades to get good at it. After 35 years it really is easy, and it is still enjoyable. Your statement is correct, a good teacher can teach someone how to hold a camera, how to turn it on and how to point it, so could a guy working in Best Buy, doesn't make them a photographer, just makes them a camera owner.  You can't teach how to see, understand light, content, composition in a matter of hours.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

I disagree, and have given supporting evidence. So, I think I'm done.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I disagree, and have given supporting evidence. So, I think I'm done.


finally.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

Nice one, you putz.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Nice one, you putz.



Nice to have such a ray of sunshine in our midst.  Really just makes the whole day so much more wonderful and uplifting.. lol


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Nice one, you putz.



I can deadlift 300.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

Braineack said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice one, you putz.
> ...



I'm not sure if ounces count - Judges?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

do you even lift, bro?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

Wow, that sure went off the rails.

Was that intended as some oblique threat? Because, having graduated from middle school some time ago, I find it more absurd than worrying.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 16, 2014)

Braineack said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice one, you putz.
> ...



I can lift 300lbs dead bodies.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

can you lift 300 dead bodies?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

Braineack said:


> do you even lift, bro?



As in actual barbell weights, no - haven't for years.  Not since my Army days which was eons ago.  Last heavy thing I picked up was last week, an engine block for a 4 cylinder chevy.  Had to move it from one end of the garage to another.  Wasn't a lot of fun but it got where it was going.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Wow, that sure went off the rails.
> 
> Was that intended as some oblique threat? Because, having graduated from middle school some time ago, I find it more absurd than worrying.



You must be great at parties.

Also; about that "evidence."


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2014)

I think what Braineack meant was...something kind of meme and insensitive...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

okay. back on subject. im going to say the consumer photography industry takes work from most pro photographers, but the camera companies, accessory companies, the printers, the software manufacturers, the large majority of consumers all love it. Everyone is making out on it like bandits and encouraging the market growth and reaping rewards EXCEPT the knowledgeable pro photographer.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> okay. back on subject. im going to say the consumer photography industry takes work from most pro photographers, but the camera companies, accessory companies, the printers, the software manufacturers, the large majority of consumers all love it. Everyone is making out on it like bandits and encouraging the market growth and reaping rewards EXCEPT the knowledgeable pro photographer.



Well that does presuppose that the people paying the fauxtographers would actually hire a professional if none of the dirt cheap alternatives were available, which is not necessarily the case.  No actual market research to support this of course, but just going by what I've seen and what I've heard a lot of folks say on the subject but my thought is that many of the people who would hire a guy for say $150 to shoot their wedding probably wouldn't hire a real pro because they couldn't afford one, and in that case they'd probably either rely on snapshots from friends and relatives or just do without completely.

Same for things like family portraits, my guess is that for a lot of these folks if they couldn't get a set for $20-$30 and the cheapest option available was $100+ then they would just not have them taken at all.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I think what Braineack meant was...something kind of meme and insensitive...



Ahh.. what a cutie.  What do you feed him?  Let me guess, 4 fried chickens and a diet coke.. lol


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

ew diet coke. I'm a fan of root beer.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > okay. back on subject. im going to say the consumer photography industry takes work from most pro photographers, but the camera companies, accessory companies, the printers, the software manufacturers, the large majority of consumers all love it. Everyone is making out on it like bandits and encouraging the market growth and reaping rewards EXCEPT the knowledgeable pro photographer.
> ...


that would assume if they didn't make 15k cars every low income person would opt to walk. And that pros with more work couldn't lower prices. And that there isn't even a percentage that could afford it. Would all the people buying twenty dollar wine stop buying wine if the lowest wine was a hundred dollars? Or would they just pay more and drink a little less wine.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Not really an apt analogy, for a lot of folks a car is a necessity. A professionally shot picture really isn't. And yes, in a lot of cases I think a lot of the people who drink $20 wine probably would stop drinking wine if they couldn't get it for less than $100 a bottle. Not all of them perhaps, but quite a few. They would most likely look for lower cost options like beer, and if none were available they would probably give it up. Most people don't look at luxury items the same way as they do necessities, and that changes the equation quite a bit.

I went to a business dinner last evening that the company paid for, at a very expensive and upscale resteraunt. My dinner alone was over $100, and it's not like I went insane ordering everything off the menu. That was for a steak and some french onion soup. Now the steak was pretty good but it wasn't that good - and frankly it's not a place I'd go back to again on my own. Only way I'd eat there again is if it were another business thing where the company was picking up the tab. 

If I want steak I've got a lot of lower cost options - but you know the high end resteraunt still manages to stay in business because they market themselves to a certain clientele. Thing is though if I couldn't get a decent steak dinner for about 1/4 what they paid last night I just wouldn't go out for steak. A steak dinner just isn't worth $100 plus to me personally. For some folks it is, but for me I've got better uses for that money. 

I think a lot of folks are the same way when it comes to photographs. For them spending $20-$30 or so on them is something they see as affordable, but once you get into the $100 and up range they think to themselves, hey, that's a weeks worth of grocieries or gas money to get back and forth to work for a week or two. Nahh, I don't really need pictures that bad.

Like I said, no real market research or solid numbers on this one, but I'm guessing that's the way at least some folks look at it when you start talking about hiring a photographer.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

One time I changed a co-workers brake pads in the parking lot for a free lunch.  ASE certified Pro.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 16, 2014)

Braineack said:


> One time I changed a co-workers brake pads in the parking lot for a free lunch.  ASE certified Pro.



.....and you put the pads on backwards, which killed the rotors and I got to sell him new pads/rotors/caliper rebuild and a tow.  Thanks.   (that actually happened to one of my customers BTW)


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2014)

Jeebus....


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

I drank a root beer once


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > One time I changed a co-workers brake pads in the parking lot for a free lunch.  ASE certified Pro.
> ...




 no.  but it wasn't worth the effort for a free lunch.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Jeebus....View attachment 71347




Sure, but you can't say my threads aren't long winded. My threads either get no responses at all, or they go on long winded tangents.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

This thread needs more cats...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



what you are suggesting is a product has zero elasticity. Im not saying photography is a inelastic product. it isn't a necessity. But then neither is cable tv. Photography by and large is a elastic product. But for the professionals to not be effected it would have to have ZERO elasticity. Even a inelastic product has some elasticity (food, fuel). Any product will find a short and long run equilibrium point in which sellers and buyers create a market for it in which the buyers are supporting the sellers at that point in which the buyers can operate at a profit. The equilibrium is always sought, naturally as the nature of markets. since groups are operating at losses, free, then the current market is obviously not at the equilibrium point. As they aren't operating at a profit (lower barriers to entry its causual).  so the market is defunct just on that basis. Normally a business not operating at a profit leaves the market and the equilibrium point for the product reestablishes itself. The enthusiasts, hobbyists, aren't leaving the market because they aren't required to operate at a profit. 
suggest, they did.
Leaving the market would cause a increase in price (increase in value) of the service. As you mentioned the products elasticity, there is no doubt many buyers would drop out of the market (normal) but the question is how many. That goes back to the amount of elasticity of photography. Very few products, in existence, have had no elasticity. In fact a increase in price of the product, buyers dropping out, would be a correction of the market. As far as how many would depend on the after effects and where the corrected equilibrium would be found. suggest buyers drop out, as hobbyists drop out. The price increases. what happens to the pros? As the price increases more pros operate at a profit, more pros open shop , price decreases again to the correction and finds its long lost point of equilibrium. This doesn't assume every buyer of twenty dollar photos still buys. It assumes a percentage of them still do, and the increase in prices causes more professional photographers who can now operate at a profit. 
As you are seeing the market now, you are seeing a imperfect market. A economic analomy. where enterers into the market aren't operating at a profit so their can be no market correction and a established point of product equilibrium.  If four hundred million people are buying 20 dollar photographs, there isn't a assumption (or wanted) that all four hundred million will buy 1000 dollar photographs. It is the assumption that the product has a level of elasticity to provide that a certain percentage of them will, creating a correction in the equilibrium point for the product price on the demand and supply side.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

Braineack said:


> This thread needs more cats...



Here






Mods, please don't ban.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 16, 2014)

I was thinking more like: Emergency Kitten!


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



It's really simple.  Take a look at the industry pre digital.  You had working pros serving the luxury and event markets as well as commercial interests, and then people who couldn't afford a pro photographer went to Sears, or the mall.   The hobbyists and Craigslists/Facebook pros have wiped out the low buck portrait studio.  Gone.  No more Sears studio, no more Kiddie Candids.    That said, the lower end of the market has opened up, people who though the $200 at Sears was just too much, can now spend $50.  or nothing at all.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius, you are in the land of "assume a spherical cow", here. Yes, the market is completely broken from a theoretical point of view. There are markets like that, where much of the theory simply doesn't apply in any meaningful sense at all. This is, I think, one of them. There are plenty of others out there. Anywhere the cost of entry and perceived difficulty are both "low" in some sense, you'll see this sort of system.

You'll also see the interesting social phenomenon, where everyone perceives everyone else as a "stupid amateur gumming up the works" and themselves as "a consummate professional who could make good honest money if it wasn't for those idiots".


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> what you are suggesting is a product has zero elasticity.



Not at all, in fact that's a huge overreach from what I did state on the subject, if I were suggesting zero elasticity I would have stated that EVERYONE views things that way and that there would be NOONE who is currently hiriing the cheap $20-$30 folks would ever purchase photos for $100 and up. I never stated that, never implied it, in fact went out of my way to make it clear that not everyone would fall into that category. 

Take the resteraunt I referenced for example - sure, if every resteraunt in the area charged the same prices they did for a steak dinner and you couldn't get one anywhere else cheaper, then I'm sure they'd get a few folks who would come there occasionally for a night out because all the other resteraunts in the area would charge them the same or more for a steak. But I doubt that would most likely be enough business that it would determine whether or not they would keep the doors open or not. These really aren't their clientele, the folks that are going to use those services often enough or in high enough numbers that it's really going to have a huge impact on their bottom line, and it's also not the people they market themselves toward.

And as a rather funny aside, if they were to start marketing themselves to those people, they would most likely lose a lot of there current clientele.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> bribrius, you are in the land of "assume a spherical cow", here. Yes, the market is completely broken from a theoretical point of view. There are markets like that, where much of the theory simply doesn't apply in any meaningful sense at all. This is, I think, one of them. There are plenty of others out there. Anywhere the cost of entry and perceived difficulty are both "low" in some sense, you'll see this sort of system.
> 
> You'll also see the interesting social phenomenon, where everyone perceives everyone else as a "stupid amateur gumming up the works" and themselves as "a consummate professional who could make good honest money if it wasn't for those idiots".



Hmm.. a spherical cow.  I wonder what that would taste like?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> bribrius, you are in the land of "assume a spherical cow", here. Yes, the market is completely broken from a theoretical point of view. There are markets like that, where much of the theory simply doesn't apply in any meaningful sense at all. This is, I think, one of them. There are plenty of others out there. Anywhere the cost of entry and perceived difficulty are both "low" in some sense, you'll see this sort of system.
> 
> You'll also see the interesting social phenomenon, where everyone perceives everyone else as a "stupid amateur gumming up the works" and themselves as "a consummate professional who could make good honest money if it wasn't for those idiots".



There is no such thing as a "broken" market, only people who don't understand how markets work, and like to say  it's "broken" when the market conditions become unfavorable.   Markets don't "break", they change. That change may not be in the best interest of certain market participants, but that doesn't mean something is broken.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

I once bought some chicken breast from Aldi's and one breast was as large as one of my adult roosters. I wonder how they got these chickens doing such heavy bench presses. I bet when they flapped their wings, a tornado would form and wipe out Alabama.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

You are welcome to argue about what the word "broken" means, but with someone else. My remarks are perfectly clear, whether or not you want to quibble over this word or that.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > what you are suggesting is a product has zero elasticity.
> ...


cool. glad we agree. !


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> I once bought some chicken breast from Aldi's and one breast was as large as one of my adult roosters. I wonder how they got these chickens doing such heavy bench presses. I bet when they flapped their wings, a tornado would form and wipe out Alabama.


they inject them with steroids and other drugs, make them fat so they cant walk. They sit around by the millions. a certain number end up dead on the stall floor from being crushed by their own weight and lack of ability to walk and move. The ones that survive they slaughter.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > I once bought some chicken breast from Aldi's and one breast was as large as one of my adult roosters. I wonder how they got these chickens doing such heavy bench presses. I bet when they flapped their wings, a tornado would form and wipe out Alabama.
> ...




Really? You're so dumb. These chickens work so hard lifting everyday and here you are claiming steroids. Do you even lift, bro?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You are welcome to argue about what the word "broken" means, but with someone else. My remarks are perfectly clear, whether or not you want to quibble over this word or that.


Because you are the arbiter of all that is true in the world.  I forgot.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


lol. now if the fifty dollar price wasn't there how many would still be going to sears? what percentage? if sears wasn't there how many would be calling a pro, what percentage? if pros had more calls and could more easily operate on larger demand and profits would that mean there would be more pros? If more pros existed wouldn't that drop the price of their charges to something between what they originated at and what sears charged and establish another price point for a family portrait?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > IronMaskDuval said:
> ...


bottles


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 16, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > You are welcome to argue about what the word "broken" means, but with someone else. My remarks are perfectly clear, whether or not you want to quibble over this word or that.
> ...



Nonsense. You are now wilfully misunderstanding me in order to make yourself feel more "right". Have a lovely day.

God I hate the internet.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Which presupposes that cost is the only factor driving the market, which of course it isn't. It also shows a total misunderstanding of a higher end clientele who are not motivated by getting the cheapest price, in fact there is a pretty decent sized market out there who believes that quality is inexorably linked to price, and frankly those are the folks who are willing to spend the kind of money a real professional photographer charges. For a lot of these folks that make up the fauxtographers business, well you looking at a lower income bracket and for them a photo would be considered an unnessecary luxury. Might be worth it to them at $20, wouldn't be at $100. 

So yes, the massive influx of fauxtographers is annoying, and yes they are booking a lot of jobs for $20-30, but I have a feeling that even if all of them got out of the "business" tomorrow you would not see a huge increase in the demand for professional photographers who charge significantly more, most likely what you would see is a few of these folks getting an extra job here or there, but it wouldn't be this massive rush and it's doubtful it would have a huge impact on most photographers bottom line.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


is that a simple matter of consumer equilibrium? if the price increases to a hundred dollars from twenty dollars. They simply buy once for a hundred dollars for every five times they went to hobbyist sarah for twenty dollars. Their utility decreases as their purchasing power but they are just substituting a diminished AMOUNT of service for a higher price for the product.. Be the same if car prices increased 10 percent. A consumer may just hold on to a used vehicle ten percent longer. and buy 10 percent less new cars.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



I completely understand, what I'm saying is we already have a model for how the market behaved before it was flooded with people who just bought their first digital camera and want to hang a shingle.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Is that a simple matter of consumer equilibrium? if the price increases to a hundred dollars from twenty dollars. They simply buy once for a hundred dollars for every five times they went to hobbyist sarah for twenty dollars. Their utility decreases as their purchasing power but they are just substituting a diminished AMOUNT of service for a higher price for the product.. Be the same if car prices increased 10 percent. A consumer may just hold on to a used vehicle ten percent longer. and buy 10 percent less new cars.



Well again we see a massive amount of assumptions being made here - first assumption being that they actually go to hobbyist Sarah more than once.  In this case that probably isn't true, most likely Sarah will get $20 out of them, they'll get one portrait session and never return.   I would be willing to bet that is how it is for a lot of that market - they are willing to spend $20 on pictures, but not $100 plus.  Also if alll of these folks were financial geniuses they probably wouldn't be the kind of people who would look at things that way, at all.

Have you ever seen a rent to own joint?  They take a $300 TV and let you rent it until you own it.  Of course when you sit down and do the actual math you find out you'll be paying $1200 for that $300 TV by the time your done renting and actually own it.  But you know what, they still have people lining up to sign that contract.  They can't take the time to save $300 for a TV or make payments to themselves until they can afford one, but they can pay $25-$50 a month for several years and not think of that as being "too expensive" even though they could have bought one for $300 and they end up paying $1200.

So maybe in a world where everyone viewed such transactions in the manner you suggest that might actually work - but in the real world, well it just doesn't work that way at all.   Offer a lot of these folks pictures for $20, and they'll say sure!  Tell them they can have pictures for $100, and they'll say no.  Explain to them that they could get one really good set of pictures for $100 rather than 5 sessions of crappy ones for $20, and they'll say "I'd never get 5 sessions of pictures" even though they probably would at $20 each and never really think about it because each time it was only $20.

Honestly you are never going to make a living trying to compete for that business, fauxtographers or not.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Is that a simple matter of consumer equilibrium? if the price increases to a hundred dollars from twenty dollars. They simply buy once for a hundred dollars for every five times they went to hobbyist sarah for twenty dollars. Their utility decreases as their purchasing power but they are just substituting a diminished AMOUNT of service for a higher price for the product.. Be the same if car prices increased 10 percent. A consumer may just hold on to a used vehicle ten percent longer. and buy 10 percent less new cars.
> ...


sigh. This isn't competing. this is taking away (hypothetically) the entire low end of the market, and funneling the remaining buyers into the remainder. Im assuming a few things, 
a. a percentage can afford just as many 100 dollar photos they are just paying 20 at the moment
b. a  further percentage will buy less photos but having the same disposable income will pay the same dollar amount in photos.
c. a hundred dollars wont seem expensive as that will become the "norm" and equilibrium rate, as there isn't a 20 dollar photo to compare too.
d. while photography is elastic, just as cable tv or many things. A large percentage of lower incomes will still purchase it just as they purchase other elastic goods and service.

you are assuming SOME people will still buy photos but the majority will not.

Mcdonalds analogy, if they shut down mcdonalds and all the dollar menus, would all these lower tier income people never eat out again? Or just eat out less at higher expense establishments? How many people low income still buy weed.  when the price went from 10 bucks for a nick to 30 bucks for a nick did they stop buying weed?  Or did some just buy less weed? is weed inelastic?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

hey, how much work do you think we took from the geek squad........... can we assume every lower income person we dealt with wouldn't have paid for their services if we weren't less expensive?


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 16, 2014)

What I laugh at is how concerned some are with what others do.

I do what I do. Period. I earn a pretty nice living doing it, too. 

To be sure, there are people who charge more, and there are people who charge less. There are people who charge next to nothing. Some of those folks are pretty good, many of them suck. 

But none of them concern me, because they can only adversely affect my business if I allow them to adversely affect my business. Thus far, I've not been hindered by them an iota.

The way I see it, the more photographers out there, the better, _especially _if they're bad.

I say "Hang that shingle out!"


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> sigh. This isn't competing. this is taking away (hypothetically) the entire low end of the market, and funneling the remaining buyers into the remainder. Im assuming a few things,
> a. a percentage can afford just as many 100 dollar photos they are just paying 20 at the moment
> b. a further percentage will buy less photos but having the same disposable income will pay the same dollar amount in photos.
> c. a hundred dollars wont seem expensive as that will become the "norm" and equilibrium rate, as there isn't a 20 dollar photo to compare too.
> ...



Again, analogy is a complete fail.  People need to eat.  They don't need pictures.  Eating out at a cheap resteraunt is often as much about convience as it is about price, and no matter how many badly formed market analogies it won't change the fact that pictures are not something that most people pay for to begin with, food is something everyone buys - so you need to first understand the market your dealing with.

Ok, for A - if the percentage that can afford to $100 is paying $20 then your dead in the water with them already.  If their only concern is who has the lowest price, the fact that they might have to go to a pro instead of a much cheaper fauxtographer won't really make much difference to that pro at all.  He/She will get an extra $100, and the minute that client sees someone else in their area offers the same service for $99 the pro in question will never see that client again.  So net gain, $100 over the course of their entire career.  Considering the small % of people that would most likely fall into this category, multiplied by the already small % of people who are actually looking to hire someone to take pictures, well odds are good that the folks in category A are going to be far too small in number and far to fickle to have any market impact whatsoever for an individual pro.  What's also missing from your equation is that most likely the majority of the people using Fauxtographers are not the same people who would hire a real pro.  They are only buying pictures because they can get them for $20.  Period.  

B & C both suffer from the same problem, in that someone willing to buy pictures because they are available at $20 would still be an interested buyer at $100.  I just don't see this as being the case at all and frankly restating it yet again is not going to change my mind unless you have something to really support this conclusion.  Granted I don't have rock solid market research myself but I've talked to enough folks about this topic and in most cases the responses are pretty much universal.  

Cable TV is also a very, very bad analogy to use because again it really isn't in the same category as photography, at all.  A photograph is something you'll pull out and look at occasionally, it's not something that is a primary source of news and entertainment for you on a daily basis.  While cable would probably be classified as a "luxury" item and not a "necessity" by both it has a much, much, much wider appeal to a much wider market and as such you can't really analyze the market for professional photography in anywhere near the same way as you analyze the market for cable.

And really that's where you keep going off the rails for most of this - markets for things like fast food or cable TV have leaps and bounds more market depth and much stronger demand than professional photography, it's not even in the same ballpark.  You cannot equate those markets to the market for professional portraits - there just isn't any correlation there because of the level of demand and market depth.

But hey, truth is I don't run a photography business myself and never plan to, so really I'm coming to the conclusion that I've already wasted way more time on this topic than what it was worth.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> hey, how much work do you think we took from the geek squad........... can we assume every lower income person we dealt with wouldn't have paid for their services if we weren't less expensive?



In my case, probably quite a bit. But then my customers weren't coming to me based on price alone. There were a lot of guys that were charging less than I was for the same advertised service. But my clients understood they would be getting quality, professional, responsible work that would be gauranteed and would have someone there to stand behind it regardless. They would have somebody there who would know what they were doing and they would have the job done right the first time, no need for do-overs or hiring someone else to fix it, etc. So they were willing to pay for that. If I'd tried to lowball every bid and compete with the "I'll do anything you need for $35 a service call" guys, well I would have been just another guy making $35 a service call and not able to scratch out anything close to an actual living. I'd would have had to have taken another job to support that job - which is what most of the $35 fix anything guys were doing.

In short I understood my market. I went after those clients that realized that if you wanted quality work, you had to be willing to pay a reasonable price. I didn't put ads in the local thrift papers and try to compete with the guys that were doing the ultra cheap pricing. Instead I spent some real money and got myself a real ad in the yellow pages - now keep in mind this was a few years back before the internet was something everybody and their brother had access to and when you needed to look something up or find a business you went to the yellow pages, because nobody had smart phones, so the Yellow pages was pretty much the end all be all when somebody went looking for a business.

Back then being in the yellow pages was way too big of an investment for most of the part time wannabee's to afford - and believe me that made all the difference in the world. By taking out a yellow page ad and spending some real money on advertising (including at one stage a couple of radio spots) it told my potential clients that I was serious, that I meant business, and that I wasn't just some fly by night outfit that would up and disappear the next day if you started having problems again.

Things have changed since then of course, as markets always do - if I were to do the same thing today I'd need an entirely different marketing strategy, different forms of advertising, etc. But I would still never try to compete with the super cheap services. You'll never stay in business that way and your just cutting your own throat.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 16, 2014)

Somewhere out there, I'm sure that I can find cliff notes for beebs and robs posts.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 16, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Somewhere out there, I'm sure that I can find cliff notes for beebs and robs posts.



Easy enough.  You can't run a business by trying to be the cheapest.  People who only want the cheapest price won't give you enough business to keep you in business.  And, in conclusion, the butler did it.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> What I laugh at is how concerned some are with what others do.
> 
> I do what I do. Period. I earn a pretty nice living doing it, too.
> 
> ...





robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > sigh. This isn't competing. this is taking away (hypothetically) the entire low end of the market, and funneling the remaining buyers into the remainder. Im assuming a few things,
> ...


oh stop. its just for fun. CHEERS! 
i will give you this. There are those, that no matter what, will not be able to cough up a thousand dollars for photos.  They would go without in that case. your buy here pay here proved that. (unless photographers start installment plans). And as mentioned (i was trying to avoid it reality doesn't always mix with theory) a lot of the people going to sears twenty years ago every year would never cough up a thousand for a pro photographer every year either. im just betting that ENOUGH would to make a difference, even if in less actual amounts of product purchase (going every two, three years?) in the pro photography market. That enough are going to lower end services just because they are available when they can afford more. No different than the middle income people going to a Walmart or sams club or box store when they can afford more. That's how Walmart became a multi billion dollar company. selling people MORE amounts, for lower prices. Taken away, people will buy less amounts, for higher prices (but better quality photos). Most everything people walk out of Walmart with is a elastic item.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 16, 2014)

I'm still trying to figure out the "Rent to Own Joints"  Rob Benz, you may be on to something with that one.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > hey, how much work do you think we took from the geek squad........... can we assume every lower income person we dealt with wouldn't have paid for their services if we weren't less expensive?
> ...


smart guy. And nope. You can increase efficiency in production, lower costs and make more by turnover of product with more widgets sold. But in your case, you are the commodity, you cant make more of you and i imagine your efficiency was pretty well off to start with. not to mention all the people doing it for free...smart guy.


----------



## Civchic (Apr 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere out there, I'm sure that I can find cliff notes for beebs and robs posts.
> ...



Also, people who choose a non-essential service or product based ONLY on price are kinda like that boyfriend that you stole from his ex. Once a cheater, always a cheater.  Once a bargain hunter, always a bargain hunter.  No brand loyalty.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere out there, I'm sure that I can find cliff notes for beebs and robs posts.
> ...



"The competitor who cuts his price is fully aware of the impact on other competitors and that they will try to match his price. He acts in the knowledge that some of them will not be able to afford the cut, while he is, and that he will eventually pick up their business. He is able to afford the cut when and if his productive efficiency is greater than theirs, which lowers his costs to a level they cannot match . . . . Thus price competition, under capitalism, is the result of a contest of efficiency, competence, ability."

-George Reisman


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 17, 2014)

Well do y'all know what I find odd? People know what sounds "good" when it comes to music (for the most part) and they can tell when someone can't carry a tune, but they have a hard time seeing the difference between a well-done professional photograph and one taken as a cash grab by an amateur.

It's like, sight is our most used sense and yet it seems to be the most subjective and vague. IE: Food that's not prepared well tastes bad. Smelly smells smell bad. People's singing sounds bad, etc...

Maybe most of the time they just don't give a damn to make the distinction because it's only $50 or they just don't want to hurt the photographer's feelings?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 17, 2014)

Walmart is certainly on its last legs, that much is certain.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 17, 2014)

rexbobcat, sight is almost entirely in the mind. Eyes are fairly bad optical instruments. What we "see" is mostly a mental construct.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Walmart is certainly on its last legs, that much is certain.



rofl.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Walmart is certainly on its last legs, that much is certain.



Um.. right. Because a retail chain store and a professional photographer are dealing with exactly the same type of market and the same market forces in which people make purchasing decisions based on the exact same factors. Any economist will tell you that. Well any economist that is also in a straight jacket somewhere and also is claiming to be Napoleon.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

Watch out guys, the largest employer in the world whose shares are up 0.25% as of this morning and grows bigger every day/week/month/year with its current number of 11,000 stores serving 245 million people weekly in 27 countries, a workforce of 2.2 million employees, 1.3 million of those in the United States alone, is on its last legs. why? because photoguy said so.  the evidence is right there.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 17, 2014)

Well, Robbins, you are the one who said

"You can't run a business by trying to be cheapest"

And yet it seems to be working OK for walmart. Suddenly trotting out a bunch of formerly invisible caveats to your idiotic blanket statement isn't going to change much.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 17, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Watch out guys, the largest employer in the world whose shares are up 0.25% as of this morning and grows bigger every day/week/month/year with its current number of 11,000 stores serving 245 million people weekly in 27 countries, a workforce of 2.2 million employees, 1.3 million of those in the United States alone, is on its last legs. why? because photoguy said so.



Well naturally he's trying to state that competing on price works for Walmart, but of course Walmart is a store that sells a ton of necessities such as food as well as other items and as a result their business model is completely and totally different than a professional photographer who is really only selling one service that would certainly not be considered a necessity by... well, anyone really.  The markets are worlds apart, the forces that drive them are completely different and frankly you couldn't even call this comparing apples to oranges.  It's more like comparing apples to aircraft carriers.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 17, 2014)

Braineack, I have to say that I am beginning to question your choice of "handle".


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Braineack, I have to say that I am beginning to question your choice of "handle".



You didn't get the irony of it yet?

ill give you a hint: brainiac is spelled b r a i n i a c.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 17, 2014)

Actual economists have a tough time with these things. [Inflammatory remark deleted]


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well naturally he's trying to state that competing on price works for Walmart, but of course Walmart is a store that sells a ton of necessities such as food as well as other items and as a result their business model is completely and totally different than a professional photographer who is really only selling one service that would certainly not be considered a necessity by... well, anyone really.  The markets are worlds apart, the forces that drive them are completely different and frankly you couldn't even call this comparing apples to oranges.  It's more like comparing apples to aircraft carriers.



walmart offered Western Union for years, until they were like, hey we can do this better ourselves and cheaper too.  Those silly guys.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Actual economists have a tough time with these things. .



it's typically the keynesians that want to alter reality to support their flawed logic.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Actual economists have a tough time with these things. .



Wow.. really trying hard to make friends and influence people I guess. Well, I guess that signals the end of my participation on this thread. Have to admit I'm always amused when folks who can't defend their statements just get childish and resort to personal attacks. I'll leave the rest for the others to sort out.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Oh look, a dunce with an opinion about economic theories he doesn't even slightly understand.



i dont even the slightest understand.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Actual economists have a tough time with these things. [Inflammatory remark deleted]


Let's watch how we refer to fellow TPF members shall we?

Thanks!


----------



## tirediron (Apr 17, 2014)

And we're done here.


----------

