What would you pay if this was the person's first gig with you? For me, it would be a low-pay job until I know how they work out. Even then, it's hard to judge how much something is worth.
I've had people approach me and ask if they could just work for me for free just so they could get some experience.
I don't think I'd bother to hire someone new for just 2 hours. Sure, if it was an assistant or shooter I'd used before, but as for pay.... I wouldn't pay a shooter any less than $30/hr, maybe more if I'd used them and knew their quality was top-notch.
My problem (and others here) isn't with the $16/hr, it's the 2 hours the job is.
griffitg wrote:
I've had people approach me and ask if they could just work for me for free just so they could get some experience.
It's one thing to shlep my cases and hold a light stand for me for minimal pay, but it's entirely another to shoot images that will be sold (at a markup, undoubtedly) using your own equipment for minimal pay. I don't make money off a green assistant, I gain convenience (if that - a clueless assistant is more hindrance than help). A second shooter is a revenue-generator, especially in this situation. I can't even rent a D200 for $16/hour, more or less.
I expect potential clients to try to get work done at obscenely low rates on a regular basis, but it's a little upsetting to see photographers taking advantage of less-established peers.
griffitg wrote:
I'm not sure what the poster is complaining about.
The photographer is welcome to pay whatever it is that he wants to pay for a second shooter, but the primary thing that comes to my mind is that he is going to get what he pays for. Judging by the vast amount of people that have posted here, very few of us would shoot for $16/hr without expenses. If he were to offer some other amount (I'll throw out $50/hr just as an off-the-cuff figure), then more photographers would be willing to do the job, including other established professional photographers. Nothing in the job description limited the work to only amateur photographers or starving professionals, right? How many here would drive across town and give 2 free hours to make $100 cash? I would, but then again, I'm one of those starving professionals (part time)
John Patrick wrote:
My problem (and others here) isn't with the $16/hr, it's the 2 hours the job is.
John
Exactly. 32 bucks isn't even a nice dinner in most places. Hardly worth it, IMHO. Now, $16/hr for 40 hours is entirely different. I can see a lot of college students willing to do that.
griffitg wrote:
For someone, it will be a nice opportunity to do some work while the photographer is paid for being the Owner/Leader/Manager. What's wrong with that rate? I really don't get the problem here.
Well, for one thing, your DSLR shutter will only last for so many actuations...don't piss them away to make chump change.
An important point here, and one often overlooked by the well-fed, is that an hourly wage is (for the most part) a price determined by supply & demand.
If someone wants to work for peanuts well that's their business. And if an employer wants to risk comprimising product quality by hiring employees with questionable skills at low pay rates that too is their business. Both parties are free to conduct their affairs as they see fit. Let the free market reign.
$32 may put a meal or two on the plate of a starving shooter .. until I've been in the shoes of the people accepting such pay rates I don't comment on the worth of it .. I'm just thankful I'm not having to accept such jobs. To me $16 per hour is outrageously low, to another it may mean a lot.
And working for peanuts is not restricted to hourly rates .. there is no shortage of budding photographers offering their services for next to nothing just to get their foot in the door, or to gain experience. Or to pay the studio rent, whatever.
Mike
I paid a student/intern photographer $300.00 to photograph 3 football teams and cheerleading squads while I did the other 3 for one of my leagues this fall.
There's alot of money to be made in these youth sport team and individuals photo days with the average package price at $35.00.
Paying someone $16.00 per hour to shoot these is highway robbery since the money is paid upfront...and the company owner knows, going in, what the take will be. I could have paid an hourly rate and given the other photographer $75.00...5 hours @ $15.00 and called it a day.
Now, paying someone $10-$15.00 per hour to shoot action is another deal because you don't know what to expect with some events.
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Action Photography
www.speedshotphoto.com
leewoolery wrote:
I paid a student/intern photographer $300.00 to photograph 3 football teams and cheerleading squads while I did the other 3 for one of my leagues this fall.
It's hard for me to get excited about this. I don't think it reflects an industry wide standard or trend.
If I am a carpenter and contractor A is paying $10.00 per hour and Contractor B is paying $15.00 per hour, and both are hiring, I will choose B if my decision is based strictly on salary.
If A is the only one hiring I may go there until I can do better.
If I don't like A or B I can take my hammer and start my own business.
No point in griping about what other folks are doing. If it works they win, if it doesn't they lose. At least they are out there trying.
The photographer is welcome to pay whatever it is that he wants to pay for a second shooter, but the primary thing that comes to my mind is that he is going to get what he pays for.
Right, and he's the main shooter, not the second one. I think $250 minimum for the pro equipment, experience, meeting & transportation time, and pre/post production. $150 per hour after that. But for those who think that $16 is fair it might be in your best interest to get the name of the people who paid the photographer who hired you and offer an alternative package for future work based on duplicates of your assignment. That should stop those $16 per hour ads.
cavis wrote:
Now see, that's more like it. +1 for leewoolery
If you're makin' money, you have to pay your help. I paid one of my customer service folks $1,000 for a week-long horse event at a county fair I shot this summer and another time they made $500.00 for a two-day horse show...and they didn't have to pick up a camera....just download cards, take orders and help clients view photos.
Sometimes I even give them a percentage of the profits.
There's plenty of work out there and a good, "experienced" photographer should be busy enough with their own assignments that $16.00 wouldn't even interest them.
Maybe a student or struggling-to-survive shooter down on their luck has no choice but to take what they can get?
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Action Photography
www.speedshotphoto.com
I found value in the post because it puts the word out there for photographers who might accept this gig to gain more shooting experience to carefully consider offers like that. The more that low rate is accepted, the more it will be expected.
The beginning photographer who does accept it will eventually realize, after paying for a shutter replacment, that it really costs more than $16 an hour just to shoot, all factors considered. So that photographer will stop accepting that low of a rate.
But the next would be photographer coming along will do an internet search and see that "$8 - $20 is the going rate around here" and believe that is the rate that is acceptable in practice. And so the revolving cycle continues.
However, when a post like this shows up, and several experienced photographers point out how one is losing money by providing all their gear, experience, and artistry for such a low hourly rate, then a search conducted by the next photographer seeking an opinion can be correctly balanced.
It is interesting to note the difference between what photographers wish to be paid themselves, and what they are willing to pay other photographers.
It is interesting to note the difference between what photographers wish to be paid themselves, and what they are willing to pay other photographers.
That is strangely and distressingly true. It also goes into other areas, like extremely restrictive "non-compete" clauses in contracts.
If you're makin' money, you have to pay your help. I paid one of my customer service folks $1,000 for a week-long horse event at a county fair I shot this summer and another time they made $500.00 for a two-day horse show...and they didn't have to pick up a camera....just download cards, take orders and help clients view photos.
Certainly. That speaks to honestly evaluating the importance to your operation of what they're doing. Downloading cards and handling sales is a non-artistic part of the operation, but if it is critical (and it is), then you need to pay attention to paying for reliability.
Just getting someone who can follow detailed instructions reliably is a big deal worth paying for--most young people today can't consistently follow explicit, detailed instructions to the letter even when they try.
RDKirk wrote:
Certainly. That speaks to honestly evaluating the importance to your operation of what they're doing. Downloading cards and handling sales is a non-artistic part of the operation, but if it is critical (and it is), then you need to pay attention to paying for reliability.
Just getting someone who can follow detailed instructions reliably is a big deal worth paying for--most young people today can't consistently follow explicit, detailed instructions to the letter even when they try.
RDKirk:
I couldn't agree with you more!
...concerning two of the best workers I've ever had in my operation, one is approaching retirement and the other is 79 years old.
One of my clients works for a large temp agency and laments all the time about the work ethic ( lack of it ) exhibited by a good portion of the younger-age job pool.
Her advice to me was to find...and do everything possible to keep...a worker who was near retirement. They seem to be the only ones...in her experience and mine...who care about doing the job right. This isn't to say all young workers are bad but most of the ones I've encountered just have bad habits which I'm not going to pay to correct.
You can have the greatest photos in the world for an on-location event but if your customer service people foul up, you're not going to be making any money.
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Action Photography
www.speedshotphoto.com
The sad thing is that some guy with a camera will be happy to work for $16 an hour. A lot of these chain portrait studios (Target, Walmart, portraits are us blah blah blah...) will only pay $8 per hour. The people paying this wage aren't interested in the quality of the work or the reliability of the photographer, it's just somebody with a camera to take pictures with a better camera than they have.
