Professional photo pricing.
Discussion
We have won a £250 photo shoot with one of our local photographers and we are going in for the snaps next week. The deal includes a framed photo, however it is clearly an opportunity to try to sell us others.
The problem being, the smallest snap is £150 and the largest is £750.00. We won a similar shoot at Venture a couple of years back and the pricing was similar.
I know nothing at all about photography, other than what it costs to get Boots to knock out some holiday snaps. So can anyone please explain to me why photographs are so horrifically expensive?
Manks said:
can anyone please explain to me why photographs are so horrifically expensive?
The theory being - you're not so much paying for the size / format of the print, but for the actual exposure itself, and the time and money the photographer has invested over the years in being able to create an image that you would want to have prints of. A bit like me asking why does my knee surgeon command such a high fee for a 60 minute op to fix my ruptured anterior cruciate. It's only an hours work for him, right?
Edited by mattdaniels on Saturday 6th August 20:36
mattdaniels said:
The theory being - you're not so much paying for the size / format of the print, but for the actual exposure itself, and the time and money the photographer has invested over the years in being able to create an image that you would want to have prints of.
A bit like me asking why does my knee surgeon command such a high fee for a 60 minute op to fix my ruptured anterior cruciate. It's only an hours work for him, right?
I understand this. However, the example photos they showed us were not the work of an artist. The free one we got from Venture was no better than okay - lacking in sharpness and colour, to the untrained eye it looks underexposed. Our wedding photographer charged per photo; the tariff was reasonable and they were good photos.A bit like me asking why does my knee surgeon command such a high fee for a 60 minute op to fix my ruptured anterior cruciate. It's only an hours work for him, right?
Edited by mattdaniels on Saturday 6th August 20:36
Simpo Two said:
It may be that the shoot is free and print sales are their only source of income. In that case they're not likely to work for an hour and then sell five prints at 50p each 
Sure. But the deal we have is the shoot and one framed print FOC. Unless their work is exceptional they won't be selling us anything else, and the example images they showed us would suggest that their work won't be exceptional.
So.
Studios are free.
Power is free
Gear is free
Photogs dont have to pay tax or NI
Frames are free
printing is free
time is free
Whats the difference between a photographer and a pizza?
A pizza can feed a family of 4.
Theres some very good business arguments that make photography one of the worst jobs to do ( along with some others) as it builds no equity.
Studios are free.
Power is free
Gear is free
Photogs dont have to pay tax or NI
Frames are free
printing is free
time is free
Whats the difference between a photographer and a pizza?
A pizza can feed a family of 4.
Theres some very good business arguments that make photography one of the worst jobs to do ( along with some others) as it builds no equity.
This is a great thread. OP has the hump, asks a question, gets the answer, still has the hump. When pointed out the obvious way of avoiding the hump-inducing situation (not going to the shoot) the OP gets the hump again.
Loving your work!
ETA: I've avoided giving a sensible answer to the original question as the OP will still have the you-know-what with photographers.
Loving your work!
ETA: I've avoided giving a sensible answer to the original question as the OP will still have the you-know-what with photographers.
bramley said:
This is a great thread. OP has the hump, asks a question, gets the answer, still has the hump. When pointed out the obvious way of avoiding the hump-inducing situation (not going to the shoot) the OP gets the hump again.
Loving your work!
ETA: I've avoided giving a sensible answer to the original question as the OP will still have the you-know-what with photographers.
I don't have the hump, it seems to be those of a photographic persuasion who have the hump.Loving your work!
ETA: I've avoided giving a sensible answer to the original question as the OP will still have the you-know-what with photographers.
I have used a few good snappers who have been quite shrewd operators. The "free shoot and one snap" operators so far appear to be a fairly hopeless bunch.
Manks said:
I don't have the hump, it seems to be those of a photographic persuasion who have the hump.
I have used a few good snappers who have been quite shrewd operators. The "free shoot and one snap" operators so far appear to be a fairly hopeless bunch.
;-)I have used a few good snappers who have been quite shrewd operators. The "free shoot and one snap" operators so far appear to be a fairly hopeless bunch.
I do agree that in general those that lure you in with a freebie then sting you for a small fortune, whereas many good established photographers make an initial charge, then charge a lower amount (than say, Venture) for the end products, myself included.
If you can brace yourself for the inevitable hard sell then take the free shoot and print, but otherwise I'd say walk away as it sounds like you're as cynical as me when it comes to some of the tactics employed by the big studio brands
Where are you?
I charge for the shoot and starter includes 2 A4 prints, 1 A3 print and a low res disk. I'm also upfront with printing costs; prices for different sizes and media. That way clients will be able to judge the cost before booking. I never hard sell like venture's time share pressure sell either. The pics sell themselves.
I charge for the shoot and starter includes 2 A4 prints, 1 A3 print and a low res disk. I'm also upfront with printing costs; prices for different sizes and media. That way clients will be able to judge the cost before booking. I never hard sell like venture's time share pressure sell either. The pics sell themselves.
ian in lancs said:
Where are you?
I charge for the shoot and starter includes 2 A4 prints, 1 A3 print and a low res disk. I'm also upfront with printing costs; prices for different sizes and media. That way clients will be able to judge the cost before booking. I never hard sell like venture's time share pressure sell either. The pics sell themselves.
East MidlandsI charge for the shoot and starter includes 2 A4 prints, 1 A3 print and a low res disk. I'm also upfront with printing costs; prices for different sizes and media. That way clients will be able to judge the cost before booking. I never hard sell like venture's time share pressure sell either. The pics sell themselves.
Manks said:
can anyone please explain to me why photographs are so horrifically expensive?
A Jackson Pollock which only cost a few bucks in paint and canvas sold for $140,000,000.00. He didn't even need an expensive camera. As they say over there... go figure. Someone asked me recently how loing it took me to write a particular piece of music they'd heard on TV. I told them quite honestly... "About 45 years".
Generally speaking (though not always) you get what you pay for. (Tracy Emin excepted)
Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 7th August 12:49
I think that one of the OP's points here is there seems to be a huge disparity in how much you pay for studio photography and the quality of the photo's that you get.
Working in the photo industry (i manage a snappy snaps store, with a studio) i see a lot of people bringing in studio photographs from various places and i usually try to talk to them about where they got them from how much they paid etc. (as its of interest to us). It nevers ceases to surprise me that some people seem to pay inordinate amounts of money for fairly poor photo's, whilst others seems to get excellent deals. I think the same is true for wedding photography.
With big names like venture i get the distinct feeling that a lot of the "photographers" are more "camera operators" who have a studio set up so that the subjects are put into set positions and all the photographer does is point and shoot. This obvisouly isn't the case for all venture photographers!
Also the prices that the OP quote seem to be well above that of the "average" studio and i would expect far more then the bog standard white background and kids on dad's back type shots that are so common these days.
For example there is a studio in guildford called limelight who charge those sort of prices, but the shots they offer are not the same old shots you get everywhere else. They also use real top end kit (looking at there website i seem to recal they use a hassleblad medium format digital camera).
Working in the photo industry (i manage a snappy snaps store, with a studio) i see a lot of people bringing in studio photographs from various places and i usually try to talk to them about where they got them from how much they paid etc. (as its of interest to us). It nevers ceases to surprise me that some people seem to pay inordinate amounts of money for fairly poor photo's, whilst others seems to get excellent deals. I think the same is true for wedding photography.
With big names like venture i get the distinct feeling that a lot of the "photographers" are more "camera operators" who have a studio set up so that the subjects are put into set positions and all the photographer does is point and shoot. This obvisouly isn't the case for all venture photographers!
Also the prices that the OP quote seem to be well above that of the "average" studio and i would expect far more then the bog standard white background and kids on dad's back type shots that are so common these days.
For example there is a studio in guildford called limelight who charge those sort of prices, but the shots they offer are not the same old shots you get everywhere else. They also use real top end kit (looking at there website i seem to recal they use a hassleblad medium format digital camera).
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff