TME said:
It is true that I do not understand fully the complexities of a pro's life but surely, even with all the work done, would not charging $100 or more an hour be considered excessive? Frankly, there are many people who work longer hours who do not even earn $100 an hour... these include white collar workers...
Right. And wrong. Forget per hour comparisons. They're misleading. But take a look at the monthly income. How many photographers are making more money than the average professional? Lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, accountants? If people start to take us as seriously as those people (and your wedding day is at least as important), then it doesn't seem as high a paying job as it was before. You have to realise that I can earn £83 an hour; usually the job per se only lasts about 10 minutes. But I don't get jobs every hour, don't get them every day, don't necessarily even get them every week.
For corporate shoots, I can well understand the need to charge high prices for the companies require top notch work. So you do need to do a lot of work. We will leave this aside.
Huh? Corporate work is lucrative because corporations have budgets. Weddings should pay well because it's a very very important occasion. That cannot be messed up. If you can see that corporate work demands high prices, I really struggle to see how you would not make the same connection with wedding work. It just makes your stand more difficult to comprehend.
Would the couple have noticed that "that" shot isn't really that good? I mean the couple ended up with about a thousand wedding shots for that one day wedding(including repeats, etc)... actually they were pretty horrified at the excess.... I can understand photojournalists, corporate even photographers having to go to that extent but weddings??
Two things. First, no they won't notice it's not there. But they will notice when it
is there. Think about that. And if they don't notice, that's like saying, why do people bother with perfume? Why do people bother with branded products? Why do people buy luxury cars? If you notice those things, or their absence, whichever way, what's stopping people from not noticing non-excellent wedding photographs, and why shouldn't they be happy to pay for them if they're happy to spend money on other premium items?
Secondly, you've also illustrated another problem with too many cheap amateurs floating the market. A professional shouldn't be giving the couple a thousand wedding shots. So the couple shouldn't be horrified. That's why the profession needs a boost, because its image is being muddied. A professional should behave professionally, and that includes presentation and editing your work before presentation to the client. I wouldn't dream of that as professional practice, yet you accept it as standard. Why?
In any case, can the couple really can distinguish between the product (not studio work, mind you) from a pro shooting and a decent amateur and between developing the shots at a pro lab (either yourself or lab) and a decent commercial lab. Cos seriously I can't quite (at least the difference is minimal to me) and unless u have really fancy shots, I also dun see the need for pro labs... perhaps my standards are not high enough... but then again, I believe that I represent a large section of people who feel the same way and hence feel that photographers charge exorbitantly.
Again, two points.
I agree that a large section of people feel the same way. That's the whole gist of my argument. As long as people keep feeling that way, professionals are screwed. But everywhere you see people buying Prada and BMW, and other luxury items. They spend money for it. The public needs to realise that spending money on photography *will* result in better pictures.
Secondly, you're completely missing the point about pro-labs. As a professional I don't charge more because I use a pro lab, which at most will add a few tens to the job. I charge more because of my expertise and experience. You don't hire a lawyer because he uses expensive stationery. You don't hire a surgeon because he operates with expensive scalpels. But you expect the lawyer to have expensive legal journals and the surgeon to have expensive operating equipment, just like you generally expect photographers to have expensive equipment, and that includes pro labs. But that's not why you pay them more, you pay them more because they know what they're doing. In the photographic context, you pay them more because their shots are composed better and they are more creative and appealing.
And frankly, (again in my own understanding), u buy the equipment that you need, and surely there is no need to upgrade everytime something new (and/or better) emerges if what you have already helps u achieve what you want anyway? Isn't the constant upgrade and hence the need to defray the cost of upgrading unncessary?
It depends. If a new surgical procedure with new equipment came up, would you not expect your surgeon to upgrade? Ironically, I see that upgrade problem more as an amateur problem than a pro problem; profesisonals are more jaded and pragmatic, and the bottom line matters.
)
That is not even the highest charge rate (I've seen US$500). They go on project that goes for a few years as well. So what? The company takes 9/10 of the amount to provide support, rental of office space, health insurance, training, and all the other things to run the company, HR, finance people, cleaning lady or coffee, tea, even news paper. I don't want to put "etc" because for most who have never worked for a few years or own or manage a company, you don't know where the money goes to.