Why do professional photographers charge so much?

I wrote a long guide for Reddit's photography section about how to monetize a photography hobby: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1bxf6e/the_business_of_photography_which_is_going_to_be/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1bxf6e/the_busi...</a> , but the subtext is "Don't bother." For most people there's not enough money in it.<p>Photography as a profession is currently bifurcated: there are a smallish number of high-end shooters (of whom it sounds like Bickley is one) and a very large number of Guys With Cameras (GWCs) on Craigslist, Model Mayhem, and elsewhere. The temptation is obvious: photography is fun, it's possible to product decent images with cheap gear these days, and a lot of people want to give professional shooting a go.<p>But the reality is a lot harder:<p><i>Let's say you want to make a living as a full-time photographer, and let's set a reasonable middle-class lifestyle at $45,000 a year (your number may be higher or lower). If you're trying to bill at $50, your take-home is probably closer to $25 an hour. To make $45,000, you'll have to bill at least 1,800 hours per year, or 35 hours per week, 52 weeks a year, paid. Adjust those numbers accordingly for vacations, illnesses, etc. (you don't get two weeks of paid vacation as an independent contractor).</i><p>Yet a lot of people are comparing real professions with GWCs who just got a D7000 and will shoot for $75 to "get experience." There is a demographically infinite number of these guys. So when average people see how much real professionals cost, they blanch, because they're often comparing pros to GWCs. Some GWCs can be reasonably good. Almost everyone charging over $100 an hour is really good. But there's little middle ground anymore.<p>One other note: Bickley might be shooting with an $8000 D4 or 1D-X, but by now many of their predecessors can be bought for $1000 – $2000. The OMFG AMAZING cameras of 2008 (Nikon D700, Canon 5D II, Sony's FF camera the name of which escapes me) that lots of pros shot with are $1000 - 1500, and for most purposes at base ISO they're still awesome and overkill. There are still reasons to buy $8000 in gear, but it's possible to produce equivalent work in many situations with much less.<p><i>edit</i>: Also, the first $8000 camera one buys is absurdly expensive, but when a new model appears most people sell their old one and use the proceeds to buy the new one, while using the cost of the new one as a tax write-off. Almost no one buys a new $8000 camera from scratch every year.

My wife and I recently had a professional photographer come out to take photos of our newborn and it was quite frustrating. Apparently it is common for photographers to not give you your digital copies after the shoot. We _can_ however purchase separately a digital copy for an individual photo at $25 a piece. Want an 8x10? $50. Want to post the entire session to Facebook for your family to see? n*$25. I asked what she normally earns from prints on average from a shoot and offered to just pay that for the digital copies, but she wasn't up for it. Also, how long does she have to keep my photos to allow me to order more prints? 3 months? 6 months? What if I want a print a year from now? What if she goes out of business next week?<p>So for me, charge what ever you want to charge for the session, but for goodness sakes, give people their photos. That is what they are paying you for.

HN's reaction to this is really odd.<p>I remember an article that was posted here a few months back where a photographer complained about this exact same thing. That people did not want to pay for high quality images done by a professional. He was criticized for not "getting with the times", that anyone can take a picture so he better drop his prices!<p>I guess this article is written much better and has hard numbers to describe how little most photographers are making. But I wonder if the developers who complain about people lowballing them for their knowledge/experience are the same ones who tell photographers that they need to charge lower prices.

The problem is with the phrase "so much". I actually don't think the average photographer charges much at all.<p>The problem is really with the customer's perception of the value of a professional's time and the work that they do.<p>It doesn't help when Canon produces ads for an entry level DSLR that ends with the bold statement "This ad was shot with this camera!". It ignores the fact that the ad was likely shot by an expensive professional with additional expensive lighting equipment and a staff of assistants. When a customer starts to think "All I need is a nice camera, and I can do that too!", you've got an uphill battle when it comes to educating customers about the value of a professional.<p>On HN, I'd bet that many of us have probably encountered people who have read or seen books with titles like "Learn HTML in 2 hours" or "Learn iOS programming in 7 days" and think that spectacular apps and sites can be created with little to no effort.

Why do professional <i>Xs</i> charge so much? Because they can do something you can't do as well, that's why you hired them.

The entire industry has been overtaken by technology somewhat, but the pricing hasn't caught up. A serious professional with professional gear? He can charge what he wants. But for most of the semi-pro weekend-warriors? They're going to find constant downward price-pressure because it's not the '80s anymore and the quality of their work isn't really that much higher than a layman with $500 of equipment, at least outdoors.<p>People put up with it because of historical inertia, but it's not going to get any better for most photogs.

I'm not a fan of these "photographer justifying their costs of business to amateur models" rants.<p>Like any profession you have the cost of doing business and the prices that you set. If someone can't afford your prices then you simply don't take them on as a client. If your work can't bring in clients at the price you feel is fair, the you should re-think you prices, approach to work, marketing to attract the clients that can pay, or find a new profession.

I'm a part-time photographer and I shoot portraits frequently. I learned pretty early on that it's almost impossible to make a living at. But, I really enjoy the creative outlet and it gets me away from coding all day.<p>At first, I charged a low per-session fee and tried to make money selling prints and digital rights on a per-image basis. But really, I don't like that model at all (neither did my customers) so now I charge a higher session fee and personal use rights to the images are included, in full resolution.<p>Most people don't realize how much time is spent in post-production. I spend hours re-touching. Not to mention, the time it takes to learn things like off-camera lighting and the cost of the gear associated. But, I'm not complaining, it's fun to learn.<p>I don't really profit from photography but it does cover some of the cost of my gear and it's just plain fun to do. Trying to make a living with photography would be extremely difficult, but clearly some people are able to pull it off.

Most minor professions from house builder to car salesman have a little bit of institutionalized dishonesty built in to them. This has creeped in by increments over a long time and so doesn't strike the practitioners of these professions as dishonest at all because "that's the way it's always been done."<p>People with a fresh perspective will compare it with other, less "storied" professions and it will feel (perhaps rightly so) like a scam.<p>Do some research and negotiate up front. If you make an unexpected demand at the end thats quite different than the usual, you'll make the photographer feel as if they are the one who's being scammed. If they know up front that this shoot is going to be different than "the norm", they will often be surprisingly willing to think differently.

$500 for five hours with a professional photographer seems very really reasonable to me, far from overpriced.

My only pet peeve is with the photographers who still think it makes sense to price by the print.<p>Please just set a price for your services and then give me the files. Printing used to be a value-added activity. It's not anymore, unless you're doing something unusual.

I get the impression from several comments that many people think that if you just state in the hiring contract that you are hiring someone to make a "work for hire", that will mean that you own the copyright.<p>Not so, at least in the US!<p>To be a "work for hire", one of two things must be true.<p>1. It is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment. The key word here is "employee". A contractor is generally NOT an employee for purposes of copyright law. Whether or not one is an employee is determined by looking at a bunch of factors, including who provides the tools for the work, the duration of the work, whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional work, the hired party's role in hiring assistants, benefits provides, and many others.<p>2. The parties expressly agree in a written, signed, instrument that the work shall be considered a work for hire <i></i>AND<i></i> it is a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas.<p>Things like wedding photographs probably cannot be construed as falling into any of those types of works listed in #2, and so cannot be works for hire, no matter what you say in the contract. Copyright will belong to the contractor (unless you manage to somehow actually end up with an employer/employee relationship under #1, which is hard). If you want copyright, write the contract so that you are buying the copyrights from the photographer.

I love how this breaks down the time involved outside of the actual picture taking. It is similar for other professions as well; you pay for the hour that you are with them but it covers the hours outside of that time as well.

A client is paying for studio time, digital copies (specified in consultation), and the desired outcome for images.<p>The photographer is paying for studio rental, time spent post processing, the CD/thumb drive for digital copies. The rest is divided into varying percentages for employee salaries, rent, food, and miscellaneous but necessary costs such as gas, medical/business/car insurance, clothing and entertainment. Don't forget, Uncle Sam wants a cut so a photographer must set aside money from each session and every sale for taxes every year.<p>Printed copies may appear outrageously expensive but, the photographer has to purchase the paper, ink and maintain the machine. They may send out images to be printed and have to pay for such services.<p>Photographers most often want to print their own images to ensure proper color/saturation handling - this speaks much about the quality of the image. Printable copies may be made available to the client and the photographer stands to lose much on the little profit they gain from prints when the client takes home high res images; this will show in a larger outright cost for the CD with printable images. The photographer will(should) state how long they will retain a copy of the images in their records so you may return for more prints within that specified time limit, or purchase the printable images when you are able to do so.

Personally, I will only have family photos done with photographers that offer a DVD with images as part of the package. That is my opinion and how I choose to spend my money. There are photographers that offer DVDs, so obviously there is a market for it. And those who are good photographers and business people will find a way to be successful in that market.<p>My problem is not necessarily with the price, but the way prices are structured. People balk at paying $25 per print because they know it's a ridiculous price for a print. Even the highest end online printers are in the $2-3 range for 8x10. But we as consumers also know that you can get very good quality 8x10 prints for half that. So they rightfully question why they are paying $25 for something they know costs the producer 1/10th the price. In a world of $1 apps, $25 prints are bound to get some push back.<p>I understand the photographer needs to make money, so don't whine about all of the burdensome costs. Give me a bottom line and let me decide if you are worth it or not.<p>Last comment ... if the photographer is complaining about time spent retouching and post-processing, then they need to either improve their photoshop skills or improve their photo skills. If it's your job, you'd better get shots right out of the camera that need very little editing or touch ups.

This is an industry ripe for disruption. I took a half assed shot at it last year (still online but left for dead) with shutterhire.com<p>My basic concept was that at some price photographers would give away all the digitals, customers should be able to "use" them (but not sell them) as they wished, and that people should choose photographers almost exclusively on the quality of their work. The business would be a marketplace fee for arranging the transaction.<p>I ultimately gave up due to personal priorities (children / day job) and a complicated legal mountain to climb (who owns copyright? Do you force everyone into a contract?).<p>If anyone wants to pick it up I'd be happy to share the code.

Because that is what the market will bear.

Something those who think "work for hire" and "you should own the IP" don't seem to understand... a huge part of being a good photographer is being a good EDITOR, and learning to keep only the very best images. I'm not a "professional" in the full time sense, but I've released professional work. My "keep rate" is 2-3%. I'm simply rejecting 49 out of every 50 photos I take. I do not EVER want ANYONE to see those other 49. Many are just plain bad, and even the good ones aren't good enough for my critical standards.<p>Because of this, I would not under any circumstances sign a work-for-hire contract as a photographer. No good photographer I know would do that.<p>Something else to consider... for many photographers, the editing process is inseparable from the photo. The in-camera raw image is only an intermediate step. I don't know how many times I've been asked for a complete set of raw images by models or performers (I mostly shoot dance performance), and they've reacted with surprise to my flat NO answer. I'm not willing to let someone else make aesthetic decisions on my raw images, except perhaps in cases where I consider the person an artistic peer and treat it as a co-project.

If you hire a photographer and simply want digital copies of the photos you took, then you deserve what you get. You are making the mistake of thinking what the photographer is doing is simply capturing images. There's no reason to pay them a lot because they aren't providing a very good service.<p>A lot of newbie photographers do indeed cater to this segment of the business. Those photographers suck and do not wind up making very much money. It is the typical race to the bottom.<p>Photographers who are successful are creating experiences, and high-end presentations of their work are part of that experience.<p>If all you want is digital copies, then hire your Uncle Bob with a case of beer. Chances are he has the same high-end equipment a good pro does, and probably knows how to use it, too.<p>This same issue is true for a lot of professionals, not just photographer. The digital revolution has greatly lowered the barrier of entry, and that's a good thing, but it also means a lot of the photographers you are dealing with in the marketplace just aren't any good.

This reminds me a bit of the article posted yesterday about lowering margins on website development.<p>We are living in an economy where technology is enabling a variety of self-service options to professional services.<p>These self service options are often dramatically cheaper than retaining a person with professional experience. For example paying $10 for a site building application vs $1000 to hire a web designer.<p>The answer of course is to sell the benefits of professional skill to your client. The trouble of course is that often clients themselves have terrible taste and are bad at distinguishing good work from bad. The website they built with yellow text on pink background may "look amazing!" to them so the difficult part is making the case to them that many of their customers will be put off by this in a way that may cost them sales.

I don't make my living as a professional photographer, but have done enough jobs and shoots to have a good feel for it. People who think photogs charge too much have the wrong perception of photography: they think that the hard part of photography is taking the picture (and perhaps knowing how to operate the camera)...and since anyone can, once in awhile, take an amazing photo with something as simple as a phone camera, then why should pro photographers get paid so much when their "work" can be done by amateurs?<p>In my experience, shooting the photo is the easiest part. Being "there", as in, the right place to shoot the photo, is even more critical. Is your child getting married? Do you really want to experience their wedding vows with a 10-pound camera held in front of your face?<p>If your photoshoot is non-documentary...i.e. you want to photog to help create a scene...well, now you're not paying for just a photographer, but a creative director.<p>And of course, a good camera is just a part...sometimes a very <i>small</i> part, of a good photo. Lighting equipment matters much more...and while you may have a great $1000 prosumer camera, you probably don't have $1000 to $10000 in lighting equipment (or the assistants needed to operate it).<p>And finally, the least fun part of all: editing and organizing the photos. I've heard that editing video takes about 10 hours per minute of usable video...the ratio isn't as drastic for photography, but even photogs with a good workflow (such as a Lightroom setup), can spend hours editing down to the best dozen photos out of a thousand.<p>To reiterate the point: shooting a photo with a camera is the <i>fun</i> and easy part. The rest of what it takes to make a great photo is what you're paying the big money for.

I've dabbled in professional photography a bit. I can tell you, you don't get rich as a photographer. To become a really good professional photographer you have to put about 5-10 years into it. There are a lot of cost, from equipments to other things. Not to mention the basic cost of doing a business. Answering 10 clients to just get one. Commuting, transportations, etc. There is a lot of cost in post-production. I occasionally shoot weddings. And I spend 3-4X as much time in post as the hours I spent shooting a wedding. So if you're charging $200/hr. You really making $40/hr. This is not does include commute cost, equipment wear and tear or rentals.<p>The best gig I've ever gotten was for a client who flew me to Lake Como, Italy for a week. But you had to envy the view while you were shooting all day :)

Oh, how we will laugh at this article when this inert industry has been disrupted.

I had the luck to find a photographer for my wedding who was willing to give me high resolution versions of my photos. He didn't even charge more than the others I contacted before him.<p>The other thing that bothers me with all the rest of the photographers I contacted for the job was that they all want to sell you their overpriced albums, prints etc on top of the photographer's price. The guy that got the job in the end explicitly told me, he doesn't arrange for prints, but if we want them he can recommend and arrange it for us but we get to pay the printer directly and not him.

The thinly veiled condescension of professional photographers like this is why I eventually got out of the business.<p>It never upset me that the models didn't understand the business or that I had to explain what was going on. Of course they don't know what are common contract terms for photographers, they aren't doing the photographer's job and they've never done the photographer's job.<p>It's no different in software contracting. Of course my clients don't have a flipping clue what it takes to make software; that's the entire point of them hiring me.<p>And keeping exclusive copyright--while I know is completely common--is straight up ridiculous. Sure, if you're David LaChapelle, you probably will be making money off of the images themselves at some point, rather than just the session fee. Of course, if you're David LaChapelle, you're also not taking gigs from the subject of the pictures, you're getting hired by magazines who are also hiring the models for you, and the magazine will demand the copyright.<p>But the vast majority of your garden variety wedding photographers and "Glamor ShotZ!" photographers aren't going to do jack with the photos. Who the hell is going to want to buy photos of YOUR wedding other than YOU? At most, they're going to stick them in their portfolio and use them as advertising. The exclusive copyright of those images is so completely valueless that the only reason the photographer could possibly want them is to gouge the customer for prints. It's disingenuous rent-seeking.

Is this any different to purchasing a program but not getting the source code?

Whatever the time is to do the shoot + every hour of experience and learning until the start of the shoot.

Unemployment doesn't cover all of their living expenses? My first project manager at HP went into photography several years ago...and so did many of the other displaced workers during post-2008.