Can I called myself photographer? plz, you need to help me..

Meh

Sep 20, 2011
702
0
Great call for everyone who recognized that there are cultural/language implications and the fact that the distinction is important to some people. Personally, I'm not sure if I would call myself a photographer despite there being no rule that says I can't. I know more about photography than the average bear, have some pretty cool gear, have taken a few nice photos, and have even sold a few (but hockey moms will pay for even bad photos of their little precious scoring a goal so maybe that doesn't really count). I do care about offending others and given my love of photography I have a great deal of respect for skilled photographers and am therefore hesitant to think of myself as a photographer. Very interesting topic and great posts by all who've responded.
 
Upvote 0
W

willrobb

Guest
awinphoto said:
There's the separation of terms Photographer and Professional Photographer... While most anyone with a camera and an understanding how to use it and to do so in a way to create images is/could be considered a Photographer, but most Professional Photographers do so for the sake of compensation whether it be money/barter/accolades, etc... The problem is most people blur the lines which is why most photographers will admit their greatest competition is amateur photographers... Professional photographers try to set their quality and price bracket at the next tier above but then again when a couple to get some joe blow off the street, pay him $100-150 to shoot an hour or two of their wedding and provide a CD of the images, hell yeah, that would be an easier sell than a pro to shoot it for $1500-3000 and get an album and handful of pictures... As for the OP, sure, call yourself a photographer but make sure if there is any confusion that you are not professional, unless you get to the point where you wish to become professional and developed a portfolio.

When someone who takes photos for a hobby refers to themselves as a photographer I don't mind so much, but then if they start to claim they are a "pro" after making a semi-decent portfolio and then undercharging to get some jobs that takes work away from people who make a living from photography I am not happy :mad:

This month I have lost out on two wedding jobs because of people like this. One was an email to the effect of "we'd really like you to take our photos, but we found another guy who will shoot all day for 100 dollars, so if you would drop you rate somewhat, say to 400 dollars (my minimum for a basic package is about 1200) we'd be willing to hire you." Errrm, no.
 
Upvote 0
R

Ryusui

Guest
I'm sure I'll get some scowls or growls for this, but whatever.

Personally, I don't understand the mindset of being offended by "professional amateur photographers" – the guys who some people say aren’t quite a “professional photographer” but still take on photo jobs and in many cases undercut the “professionals.” Getting angry for losing business to them; sure, I can see that. But while I understand, appreciate and agree that photography is an art, it is also a business. And like any business, there will be people vying for a piece of the pie. They do this because they know there are people out there “overcharging” (I use this word very loosely and only in the sense of the customer’s standpoint, not my own or the competing photographer) and that some clients are looking for a better deal than they are a higher caliber of work. (On that same note, I am also in no way saying that the work of a photographer who charges $200/day is of lesser quality than one who chargers $200/hr.)

Yes – there are many men and women make their whole living off of photography while some of these others are doing it as a side-job, to try and climb their way up into the “professional” ranks, or just for fun. But the unfortunate reality of things is that many people are a lot more price conscious than they used to be, which means they’ll shop around more. And if they find “Joe Blow” with a decent looking webpage and some nice looking photos advertising his services for a fraction of the cost, then it is likely they will go with him.

Though some may or may not agree, I think construction and engineering can be just as much an art as photography is. And those businesses are definitely about undercutting the last guy. But for less money, you also run the risk of getting lower quality goods.

Is the advent of the cheap dSLR a blow to the professional photographer? Sure. With everyone and their mother thinking they can be a professional photographer the market has become greatly over saturated with people who will undercut the pros who have been doing this for years and in many instances will blow away any Johnny-Come-Lately with a Canon Rebel. But I also think it's a good challenge. It makes those who have become set in their ways look at the craft in a new way. Pros must constantly re-invent themselves to be ahead of the game instead of being stagnant and that just means better things for the art and the artist.

My point? Instead of getting angry or frustrated with all the guys who keep "stealing" your business, find ways to show the client why you're unique and how the price you're asking is far less than what you're worth.
 
Upvote 0
W

willrobb

Guest
I don't think any photographer minds a bit of competition, it does ensure people keep their standards high and keeps the art of photography moving forward.

As for complaining about undercutting rather than proving their worth, it's quite hard to compete when someone offers their photography services for free or for less than a tenth of the going rate. Especially when those offering free/cheap deals already have another job that pays their mortgage and the photography is just something fun for a bit of extra cash. The guys offering 100 dollar wedding shoots wouldn't be able to give up their day job and make a living from photography by charging the same rates, so it's not really a level playing field. Even if their goal is to become a full time photographer they are already shooting themselves in the foot by lowering the market value by offering cheaper deals in the first place, so it's bad for all photographers, whether they be full time or part time.

At the end of the day though, the people who are good at what they do will keep getting work as long as they keep working hard and have a bit of luck. I hope all hard working people in every industry keep their jobs and are able to provide for their families.
 
Upvote 0
It is a tough market and dilema, but at the same time people need to get a start somewhere. Especially when starting out.

I currently do TfP or even more shockingly, I even pay some models.

But that is also the level of my work.

I am probably undercutting myself at the moment, but at the same time we also have a scale in our heads when we look at more professional shooters work. Since I do a lot more fashion work at the moment, I will take a benchmark for me like Stephen Eastwood. Love the man's work. Not even close to his quality and skill. Granted, he also easily has 100x more experience than I do, if not more, so not really a fair barometer, but as well, I also tend to work with people that most Professional Photographers piss on.

I am trying to get better, I never plan to be a photographer as a profession, but I do plan to get to be a professional photographer. My distinction is I want to be able to shoot on my terms, create art when I am inspired, and do want to get paid, though I will be shooting far far less.

I have worked with a lot of new models, I have also worked with a few who have a lot more print and media and I hear a TON of stories about photographers who cancel last minute, treat the models and MUA like crap and there is the pervasive attitude of "I already have that in my portfolio, here are my rates"

Charge $100 for a wedding... Not for me. I actually hope I NEVER have to shoot a wedding. Have no desire to.

There is definitely "more" competition in the digital age, because it is much cheaper to snap 400 shots on a digital than it is to develop film, as well as it is easier to see what you are getting.

There is a defined hierarchy. The better models want to be paid, just like the best photographers do, and generally that means a client is in their paying the fees. Learning photographers tend to work with learning models and even there it is not a bed of roses since we have to prove more often than not that we are serious and not just a "guy with a camera"
 
Upvote 0
willrobb said:
awinphoto said:
There's the separation of terms Photographer and Professional Photographer... While most anyone with a camera and an understanding how to use it and to do so in a way to create images is/could be considered a Photographer, but most Professional Photographers do so for the sake of compensation whether it be money/barter/accolades, etc... The problem is most people blur the lines which is why most photographers will admit their greatest competition is amateur photographers... Professional photographers try to set their quality and price bracket at the next tier above but then again when a couple to get some joe blow off the street, pay him $100-150 to shoot an hour or two of their wedding and provide a CD of the images, hell yeah, that would be an easier sell than a pro to shoot it for $1500-3000 and get an album and handful of pictures... As for the OP, sure, call yourself a photographer but make sure if there is any confusion that you are not professional, unless you get to the point where you wish to become professional and developed a portfolio.

When someone who takes photos for a hobby refers to themselves as a photographer I don't mind so much, but then if they start to claim they are a "pro" after making a semi-decent portfolio and then undercharging to get some jobs that takes work away from people who make a living from photography I am not happy :mad:

This month I have lost out on two wedding jobs because of people like this. One was an email to the effect of "we'd really like you to take our photos, but we found another guy who will shoot all day for 100 dollars, so if you would drop you rate somewhat, say to 400 dollars (my minimum for a basic package is about 1200) we'd be willing to hire you." Errrm, no.

It's definitely a tough market... and I blame digital for the most of it... In the film days it was easy to be pro... because you had to really acquire the skill needed to shoot, develop, print, expose, compose, and in the end, you dont fully know if you got everything perfect until after the shoot and you've developed your film... That needed skill really thinned the heard sort of speak... now people can instantly see and be gratified if they got the shot and exposure right on the blasted LCD screen... So while it made pro's lifes easier, it made a whole new batch of amateurs thinking they can compete...

While my specialty isn't portraiture/weddings, a lot of my really talented colleagues who specialize in just this are having problems in people undercutting, people trying to barter, people trying to low ball... And while she is a professional, she's had to take up another part time job to make up the difference in what she's not making now... On creativelive, i've learned that you could be a so-so photographer, but it's now all about presentation, all about the business and being good at selling and selling your brand... I think this should be our new topic in this thread... marketing ideas and branding ideas... how do you separate yourself from the heard given the economy and new batch of up and coming photographers...
 
Upvote 0
It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken.

Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.

Drift over to an activity that can be performed recreationally and we have "pilot" who may only fly Cessnas and possess a PPL. Yet, fighter pilots, commercial pilots and airline pilots are not offended when someone calls them simply "pilot" despite the years of additional training and higher graduation of licencing.

I am likely the worst, least-knowledgeable photographer on this site. Yet, because I share a passion for photography and have carried a camera around in one form or another since acquiring my Kodak X15 in 1972, I have no problem describing myself with the term.

Now, others might not share my interpretation.... ;)
 
Upvote 0
Interesting discussion that touches on many different issues in my opinion. There are the obvious cultural and language implications that I can appreciate as someone who grew up in Western Europe and now lives in the slightly different cultural and professional climate here in the United States. And based on my conversations with people from different parts of Asia, some of the differences and societal demands are even more different. And I think that is the biggest issue for the OP (great portfolio by the way - and I personally see no reason to be discouraged calling him a photographer).

The other issue is that of the "professionalism" as both a mannerism and a monetary question. I'm too much of a libertarian soul to get worked up about this. As far as I know, at least in this country, "photographer" is not a protected term or anything that requires licensing, registration or any union nonsense (not even here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...). That may be different elsewhere and worth checking any exact terminology. I, for example, would call myself a "Registered Nurse" here in the States, because it means something very specific. I am a nurse though by training (many many moons ago and I haven't practiced in years), but my license is elsewhere and hence the protected term RN does not apply here. Doesn't mean that my knowledge went away and would come in handy in my life as a healthcare consultant in non-clinical areas. You get the idea.

With photography the lines are also blurry between "arts" and "business" - nothing wrong with that in my book. And people can pursue both and sometimes art sells and sometimes "guns for hire" can be great artists. Which of them is more or less "professional"? I don't know. Picking a craftsperson/artist/business owner for any of your needs is always a bit guesswork. We had a great photographer for our wedding and I'm still pleased with the results. Certainly more the artist type and I don't think he is still in business. Professional? Sure - at the time I think he made a living from different types of photography. Maybe he made money also with other stuff. I don't know.

Or my carpenter. True artist! And a professional. And I have no issues also letting him fix some electrical wiring while he is working on something else. Does that make him a professional electrician? No. And the unions would crucify him. But the man knows what he's doing. And he can see the big picture and comes up with ideas that work for his clients. In other words: there can always be overlap between "trades" and skills and business models.

If that offends any of the professional (wedding) photographers I can't help it. I'm sure a lot of them are great and very engaged and care about the outcomes for their clients and worth their money. And there may be the occasional kid out there who is also talented and is shaking up the market a bit. It's all good. People should embrace that.
 
Upvote 0
wellfedCanuck said:
It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken.

Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.

Drift over to an activity that can be performed recreationally and we have "pilot" who may only fly Cessnas and possess a PPL. Yet, fighter pilots, commercial pilots and airline pilots are not offended when someone calls them simply "pilot" despite the years of additional training and higher graduation of licencing.

I am likely the worst, least-knowledgeable photographer on this site. Yet, because I share a passion for photography and have carried a camera around in one form or another since acquiring my Kodak X15 in 1972, I have no problem describing myself with the term.

Now, others might not share my interpretation.... ;)

The difference is everything except maybe your cessna pilot, are doing the "profession" for profit... It makes them a professional at what they do... A commercial Pilot for instance doesn't have to worry about a cessna pilot undercutting him... Nor a fighter pilot, etc... Medical professionals from the clerk to nurse to ER doctor have plenty of education in their background to get them where they are... Professional Photographers and Amateurs are having the lines blurred greater than ever before... And the general public is daft enough not to know the difference. This is why this subject is such a touchy situation for most people... Professionals dont want to lose money from amateurs while amateurs dont really have anything to lose and dont mind making a few bucks doing something they would do for free anyways.
 
Upvote 0
wellfedCanuck said:
It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken.

Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.

Drift over to an activity that can be performed recreationally and we have "pilot" who may only fly Cessnas and possess a PPL. Yet, fighter pilots, commercial pilots and airline pilots are not offended when someone calls them simply "pilot" despite the years of additional training and higher graduation of licencing.

I am likely the worst, least-knowledgeable photographer on this site. Yet, because I share a passion for photography and have carried a camera around in one form or another since acquiring my Kodak X15 in 1972, I have no problem describing myself with the term.

Now, others might not share my interpretation.... ;)


I agree with you. And you were able to express almost the same thing in fewer words.

And actually, I know of at least one physician (I personally try to avoid the term "doctor") who does his work more like a "hobby" or passion or whatever. He is independently wealthy and does not draw a salary. Still a professional, right?

Good example regarding the pilots. I've noticed that in the way how pilots of all sorts talk about and to each other. There is a lot of respect involved, even if a fellow pilot is "only" flying his or her own Cessna at the local airport. Maybe it's because there are so many licenses and protections build in that those folks are not considered a threat. Maybe it's the military background that many of those folks have.

In any case, there seems to be a lot more mindless bickering among photographers and talking down to one another.
 
Upvote 0
O

Orion

Guest
M.R.Rafsanjani said:
. . .
I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer. But the problem is how to describe yourself with your commitment towards photography to the other people. I called myself 'photohunter', but that term seems doesn't work and people don't understand. Can I just used 'hobbyist photographer' instead??. . .

Photography is a profession. If you refer to yourself as a photographer, then it is your profession. If you do it for fun and enjoyment, then you are an enthusiast photographer and do it for hobby. People will understand that you are not a "photographer." If you are not a professional, and not taking photos for profit, then it is best not to consider yourself a "Photographer." You love photography, you take photos, but you are not a Photographer. . . .

If you take photos to sell as prints, then you are a Photographer. < We are back to the profession aspects of it.

We must rememebr that if you consider yourself a Photographer, then you are refering to a profession, and not somehting to do with a hobby or enthusiast, etc. . .

Since the advent of digital cameras, many people who think oversaturated HDR photos are "amazing" begin to think of themselvesa s photgraphers because "it is so amazing that I must be THAT good" Flickr: "hey look at mine, please give me an award so that I can feel better about myself."

If you are a Photographer, then mean it. Earn income. . . do it to sell prints . .. do weddings . . . portraits, commercial, etc . . . .

I guess anynone that takes photos religiously can be considered a photographer, but that is not what is meant when we speak of "Photograher." Stop wattering down terms/language people ;)

edit:

If you are a physician, and you are retired, you are still a physician. . . you have been one since graduation, whether you practice or not. If someone goes to school to LEARN photography, upon graduation, you are not a photographer by trade unless it is your profession. . . . what you do as a career. MANY people are self taught at home by practice and hands on witha camera. A physician has no such "career" they ARE a physician as soon as they graduate. They don;t even need a hospital setting to be one, or need to have a scalpal in thier hands . . but to be considered a Photographer, you must be in the profession, or you are a hobbyist/enthusiast, etc.
 
Upvote 0
7enderbender said:
wellfedCanuck said:
It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken.

Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.

Drift over to an activity that can be performed recreationally and we have "pilot" who may only fly Cessnas and possess a PPL. Yet, fighter pilots, commercial pilots and airline pilots are not offended when someone calls them simply "pilot" despite the years of additional training and higher graduation of licencing.

I am likely the worst, least-knowledgeable photographer on this site. Yet, because I share a passion for photography and have carried a camera around in one form or another since acquiring my Kodak X15 in 1972, I have no problem describing myself with the term.

Now, others might not share my interpretation.... ;)


I agree with you. And you were able to express almost the same thing in fewer words.

And actually, I know of at least one physician (I personally try to avoid the term "doctor") who does his work more like a "hobby" or passion or whatever. He is independently wealthy and does not draw a salary. Still a professional, right?

Good example regarding the pilots. I've noticed that in the way how pilots of all sorts talk about and to each other. There is a lot of respect involved, even if a fellow pilot is "only" flying his or her own Cessna at the local airport. Maybe it's because there are so many licenses and protections build in that those folks are not considered a threat. Maybe it's the military background that many of those folks have.

In any case, there seems to be a lot more mindless bickering among photographers and talking down to one another.

I think the difference in the pilots, they all have to undergo heavy training, such as medical professionals, in order to fly... They got to pay dearly for their license to fly, go through regular FAA flight schools and training, and provide themselves worthy of flying airplanes... So after all of that, there is an understood fraternity if you will among pilots... The business thing isn't as glaring and as delicate as photographers because, as I said before, a cessna pilot most likey cannot take business away or take the job of a commercial pilot, nor can he take the job away from a fighter pilot... seperate industries/expertise/nitches if you will... Even if the cessna pilot wanted to become an air charter, they have even more inspections and rigors from the FAA in order to do so... With photography, for an amateur to steal money from a pro, all he does is go onto craiglist, post an add undercutting or offering free services, and bobs your uncle... There's no regulation, no standard... he could be a crap photographer or even a decent up and coming but one heck of a lot of people skills and Pro's start to lose money... If you take away the strict oversight of the FAA and regulations/restrictions and make the pilot industry more of an open market, or even the medical industry, there would be as much tension in those industries as well... As a photographer I love meeting other photographers and discussing work and techniques and such, but when it comes down to my bottom line and whether or not I can provide money for my family, then it's a whole new ball of wax.
 
Upvote 0
Sorry. Disagree that if you label yourself as a "Photographer" you have to earn a living.

Example. I am a triathlete. I do and compete in triathlons. Many olympic and half ironman distances, but I train, compete and complete. There are PROFESSIONAL triathletes that also train, compete and complete races... Hence PROFESSIONAL... earn money.

The comparisons to a pilot, doctor, etc., are useless and baseless comparisons, and as well, there are comparable distinctions between a pilot (someone who is licensed) and a COMMERCIAL PILOT, so one who is licensed, trained and likely bonded for the transportation of passengers and/or cargo. Doctors, pilots and the like also go through not only years and years of specialized training, required hours of practice and certification, but they also are responsible for lives. You take a bad picture, 240 people are not likely to die. Captn Sully makes a mistake and hundreds of people possibly crash and burn or drown.

Photography is an art form. Art is subjective. Art is emotional. If your work inspires or illicits an emotion, it can sell. I find Jackson Pollock's work to be juvenile, uninspired and just a bunch of paint sprayed from ketchup bottles. Many would disagree. And sorry... I would not pay $140 Million for #5 which to me could have been more appropriately titled, #2.

This new age is an age of art. The people who stand out are the artists. Doesn't matter if you are a singer, a painter, a writer, or a photographer. Who are some of our highest paid people? Actors, Actresses, Musicians. It comes down to talent and presentation. I have seen some acts where I pay a $5 cover at a bar and they can put on just as good of a show as spending $500 for a ticket to a big concert. Then again, sometimes that $5 band tries harder and gives the fans more.

There will always be people who kick the tires, try and see if they have what it takes. Some will succeed, most will fail, but no matter what you look and do, there will always be someone willing to do something cheaper when comes to art, because there are dues to be paid, skills to be learned, and at the top there can be a snobbery where until someone has proved themselves, they are looked down upon.

When I look at someone like Michael Buble, not sure if the music community slammed him because he was singing in malls, but people all start somewhere, and whether it is giving your paintings away at art fairs, sometimes it takes time to get the skills and confidence to move up the ladder.

There will always be cheap shooters for weddings, and in the end, people get what they pay for. When people sit down an look at wedding albums, the shots that stand out will generally be from the Professional, or that cheap shooter will develop, learn and be charging higher as their skills and reputation develop. Absent the cheap shooter, there will always be cousins, friends, brothers, sisters, and others with camera who will take their place, so just because the $100 amateur is not there does not mean there would not be a photography student or other similar learner who is showing skill. Some of it is supply and demand, but a lot of it is a person only has so much to spend, and you never were in the running regardless.
 
Upvote 0
R

Ryusui

Guest
Maui5150 said:
There will always be cheap shooters for weddings, and in the end, people get what they pay for. When people sit down an look at wedding albums, the shots that stand out will generally be from the Professional, or that cheap shooter will develop, learn and be charging higher as their skills and reputation develop. Absent the cheap shooter, there will always be cousins, friends, brothers, sisters, and others with camera who will take their place, so just because the $100 amateur is not there does not mean there would not be a photography student or other similar learner who is showing skill. Some of it is supply and demand, but a lot of it is a person only has so much to spend, and you never were in the running regardless.
This.

Someone previously said they had lost a client due to another person undercutting them. In all likelihood that was true; but there is also the possibility that when they saw what that person was charging, they realized that there was no way they'd be able to swing that much. Enter Shooter B and his bargain basement price. They figure, "okay, maybe we can talk the really good guy down a bit since we still prefer his work." No luck with that, so they end up going with Shooter B. So even if Shooter B never existed, our friend here on the forum never had a chance at that job to begin with. Not because someone cheaper existed or because they were "overcharging", but because the potential client just didn't have the budget for that level of service.
 
Upvote 0
Ryusui said:
Maui5150 said:
There will always be cheap shooters for weddings, and in the end, people get what they pay for. When people sit down an look at wedding albums, the shots that stand out will generally be from the Professional, or that cheap shooter will develop, learn and be charging higher as their skills and reputation develop. Absent the cheap shooter, there will always be cousins, friends, brothers, sisters, and others with camera who will take their place, so just because the $100 amateur is not there does not mean there would not be a photography student or other similar learner who is showing skill. Some of it is supply and demand, but a lot of it is a person only has so much to spend, and you never were in the running regardless.
This.

Someone previously said they had lost a client due to another person undercutting them. In all likelihood that was true; but there is also the possibility that when they saw what that person was charging, they realized that there was no way they'd be able to swing that much. Enter Shooter B and his bargain basement price. They figure, "okay, maybe we can talk the really good guy down a bit since we still prefer his work." No luck with that, so they end up going with Shooter B. So even if Shooter B never existed, our friend here on the forum never had a chance at that job to begin with. Not because someone cheaper existed or because they were "overcharging", but because the potential client just didn't have the budget for that level of service.

EXACTLY. Near where I live there is a Kia dealer right next to a BMW dealer. On the lower end maybe some of the BMW 128 drivers go cheap with a Kia sedan, especially when it comes to service costs, but would the person in the market for a 7 or 8 series run next door and say, Hmmmm I can get the BMW 750li for $107K or a Kia Forte for $25K.

I don't hear BMW yelling, "Hey KIA IS SELLING CAR CHEAP" They are undercutting our business!

It is an exaggeration, but again, the Kia buyer really never is in the market for a BMW 750li Lottery Winning aside.

There will be many many many familys who simply will not pay more than a few hundred dollars for a wedding photographer, because in the end, their experience may be you look at the pics for a year or so, then they sit on the shelf...

Especially with divorce rates so high...

My big wedding picture is currently in the attic waiting for a more suitable picture to reuse the nice frame.

How many people are on their second marriage? You think the "glimmer" has worn off just slightly on the idea.

I think there are actually more single people than married people now, and while memories are important, many many people are gun shy.

Also look at it this way... Would you rather work for someone who likes your work, likes your price, or someone who is stretching their dollar and hoping to squeeze more or add more out of you in the end to make it pay off.

If someone only thinks shooting a wedding is worth $100 do you think you will up sell a lot of pics? Do you think they are going to be easy clients to work with or difficult?

I understand the larger point of the perception that the amateur devalues the field, but I think it also saves you a lot of headaches in the end.

How long does it take to field phone calls, discuss packages, etc.? What if all the people who just wanted cheaper shots had no options and were spending time with you trying to figure out how they can get you to shoot for $250 or $300???

I have been away from sales for a LONG LONG time, but one of the first lessons I learned, especially when doing say presentations, was to only do so when a decision maker was in the room. Ultimately you will have to present to them most of the time anyway, and presenting to underlings without signing authority most often was just a practice presentation. It costs time and money to do a sales pitch, field phone calls, etc, especially when they were never in a ball park price wise.

You can look at it under-cutting your business, but I look at it as also saving you a great deal of time.

I think there are more of these people who go with the $100 Guy with a good camera for a wedding that never really could come near to your price.

Do you consider a big night on the town a meal at Morton's or TGIFs?

Ever have a client you gave a bit of a deal to? Ever find that sometimes those are the ones you bust your a$$ the most for?

Just a different perspective.

On the side I buy and sell high end designer fashions. Have done well with it. Have great customers who pay more than I expect sometimes, and even worries me because I find it is more than what I perceive the value to be, but more times than not, those are the happiest customers. I also run into a TON of tire kickers, who only want to pay me half or less of what I consider the floor price to be. They are persistent. They can also be the biggest pain in the neck to me in terms of "minute details or issues" I have more issues with someone who got a $100 items from me down to $75 in terms of grief or complaints, than someone I sold a $2000 item in my eyes for over $4000.

I have also run into those who expect the finest and are seriously demanding, but when it comes to expectations and delivery, when someone steps out of their comfort range and pays more for an item or service than they are comfortable with, they tend to holler and scream the most.
 
Upvote 0
Orion said:
If you are a Photographer, then mean it. Earn income. . . do it to sell prints . .. do weddings . . . portraits, commercial, etc . . . .

I guess anynone that takes photos religiously can be considered a photographer, but that is not what is meant when we speak of "Photograher." Stop wattering down terms/language people ;)

edit:

If you are a physician, and you are retired, you are still a physician. . . you have been one since graduation, whether you practice or not. If someone goes to school to LEARN photography, upon graduation, you are not a photographer by trade unless it is your profession. . . . what you do as a career. MANY people are self taught at home by practice and hands on witha camera. A physician has no such "career" they ARE a physician as soon as they graduate. They don;t even need a hospital setting to be one, or need to have a scalpal in thier hands . . but to be considered a Photographer, you must be in the profession, or you are a hobbyist/enthusiast, etc.


Why so bitter? And I'd agree if this was really a case of watering down language, which it is not and I otherwise would have an issue with. The primary definition derives directly from the original words "light" and "to write" or draw. So a photographer is someone who paints with light if you will. Merriam Webster in fact adds a secondary meaning as someone who earns a living by doing so. So both interpretations are valid from a language standpoint - at least in English and when considering the Greek origin. Fair enough?

And then there is the question of a)not selling anything b)giving stuff away for free c)selling the occasional print or d)trying to actually make a living off being a photographer

In my life as a photographer I am at B currently pursuing C. I'm not interested in D. The money doesn't seem good enough and the lifestyle wouldn't suit my role as a husband and father I believe. Maybe wouldn't be good enough to even make the meager living that the average "professional photographer" these days seems to make. But that's not the point.

It's the attitude of telling people how they have to label whatever they do just because they make an economic decision that their money is earned elsewhere in a better way and how to judge what they do with the rest of their time. Know what? I'm a pretty good guitar player and at some point in my life actually would have been considered "semi-pro" or whatever, because I was actually earning a living (in addition to my "day job"). I was considering going all pro - but I also saw what happens to the vast majority of people who do it. That wasn't for me because I care enough for music and art and anything I do outside my "professional life" to not end up teaching 15 year old guys how to play Metallica riffs and playing in a wedding band at night.

It's the underlying assumption that you need a) a formal education and b) something be you official "profession" to be any good at anything is just bogus. And very un-American I shall say. And I say that as an immigrant to this country - partly because that has been exactly my experience so far over the last few decades. Most people will not try to tell you what to do and how or that trying to get really good at something new is somehow equated to being a failure at something else. I can homeschool my kids and they may still go to Harvard. Or not. Anything goes within reason and based on merit. Do I make any sense here? Sorry to keep going on but this kind of stuff is close to my heart in a way. I wouldn't want the OP (or anyone) feel discouraged just because of somebody's word smithing or prejudice.
 
Upvote 0
K-amps said:
thepancakeman said:
bycostello said:
who cares what others call you or what annoys them.. do what pleases you.. live your life for yourself and not for the gratification of others...

-1. I have no idea what the cultural implications of this are in Malaysia, but simply telling someone to do whatever they want without a broader context is selfish and short-sighted.

You are on a road to a very unhappy life if you live for other people and not for yourself... and only by being yourself can you be truly great...

+1: I was thinking the same... there's a reason why the OP posted the question, he is looking for rationale or a justification of sorts. It's important for him...
 
Upvote 0
K-amps said:
thepancakeman said:
bycostello said:
who cares what others call you or what annoys them.. do what pleases you.. live your life for yourself and not for the gratification of others...

-1. I have no idea what the cultural implications of this are in Malaysia, but simply telling someone to do whatever they want without a broader context is selfish and short-sighted.

+1: I was thinking the same... there's a reason why the OP posted the question, he is looking for rationale or a justification of sorts. It's important for him...

Is he looking for platitudes or an opinion?
 
Upvote 0
K

KeithR

Guest
Orion said:
Photography is a profession. If you refer to yourself as a photographer, then it is your profession.

Just no - there's absolutely no basis for this argument.

I play guitar - and I'm as good as a great many pro guitarists - and just because it's a hobby for me doesn't make me any less of a guitarist.

I am also - I'd like to think - a reasonably accomplished photographer (a bird photographer, as it happens) and my efforts have been considered favourably by some very capable professional wildlife 'togs who appear to be happy enough to talk to me on equal terms rather than as a talentless wannabe: by any reasonable definition then, I'm a photographer.

If you do the thing, you are the thing - it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. When you get behind the wheel of your car of a morning to drive to your job, aren't you a driver every bit as much as Sebastian Vettel, even though your drive might be to a dull paper-shuffling job in an office somewhere?

If asked whether I'm a pro (and I do get asked on occasion) I describe myself not as an amateur photographer which - although technically true - implies a lack of facility, but as an enthusiast photographer.

It's not irrelevant to this point that many of the most important discoveries in science were made by "gentleman scientists" - enthusiastic amateurs.

Are you seriously going to suggest that the likes of Robert Boyle, Henry Cavendish, Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin weren't scientists because science wasn't their bread-and-butter profession?
 
Upvote 0