RDKirk wrote:
In general, a $300 job will take me nearly as much time and effort the $3000 job will take me, and the $300 client is likely to be a far greater pain in the okole. If a $3000 job takes me a total of 30 hours, the $300 job is going to take probably 20-24. I'm not going to deliver work below my professonal and creative standards...that would affect my ability to charge anyone $3000.
I'm talking about a job that's worth $300, not one that's worth $3000 for which you only charge $300
$3000/30 hrs = $100 an hour
$300/20 hrs = $15 an hour
not really a fair comparison
10 portrait session in an all setup studio takes less time, planning, shooting, pp, communication etc etc than setting up a complete on location ad shoot
blob loblaw wrote:
I think the whole point of this thread is who and how sets the 'worth', then you go and say things like this...
Kinda ripped out of context, this was about the job size and amount of time involved in retrospective to the amount payed. I was talking about the perceived value of a photographer who's PERCEIVED value is $100 an hour doing work for $15. And this goes back to the OP who stated he doesn't have that much time and rather have one big cheque instead of several smaller ones. To which I responded that a $3000 job, in general, costs just as much time as 10 $300 ones. And obviously, the size of and the amount of time spend on a shoot is one of the things that do set the 'worth'
Milamug wrote:
I'm talking about a job that's worth $300, not one that's worth $3000 for which you only charge $300
$3000/30 hrs = $100 an hour
$300/20 hrs = $15 an hour
not really a fair comparison
If you're at the point where you're able to charge $3,000 for portrait gigs I can guarantee you aren't charging by the hour.
In fact, I submit that you're doing yourself (and possibly your clients) a disservice if you're charging by the hour at all.
The $3,000 portrait shoot might take 3 hours, including lighting setup, with maybe an earlier tech scout. The $300 portrait shoot might take the same amount of time, though minus the scout. The difference isn't the time invested or even necessarily the photographer, it's the client and their budget/expectations. Like RDKirk said - you might spend more time/energy massaging the client so they feel they got their money's worth, but the job itself probably takes the same amount of time and effort to do right.
Milamug wrote:
Ok, I'll play
It's not the destination that matters, it's the road that gets you there
Ahhhhh, but if the destination doesn't matter, why are you bothering going anywhere and why are you even on a road in the first place? And if the destination doesn't matter, why would it matter which road you were on since any road could take you to any unimportant destination?
Of course, that's entirely different from saying that the destination is not as important as making the most out of the journey on your road to a specifically chosen, desired-but-ever-unattainable destination.
Just gotta warn ya -- I could have been a philosophy or psych major back in college, too. Heck, in my day job I pretty much have to be a shrink as it is. As long as there isn't any blood involved in portrait photography, it'll be a piece of cake. After all, while people might be tense or nervous in front of a camera, that's way easier than (for example) dealing with a woman who walks in and says, "You know, doc, I hate dentists so much I'd rather be seeing my OBGYN. Nothing personal, though."
I'll just echo what others have said already. Don't look at this from a trade's or craftsman point of view. Attaching a value here is completely a perceived notion not related to the hours or equipment you put in.
Shatterkiss who has a lot more experience just basically confirmed that amount of time is more or less the same... In fact I'd take a guess that on a $50k job, you might actually be doing less 'work' since you'd have assistants and a dozen other people. And by 'work' i mean physical labor
You do get paid for your expertise, problem solving, people skills, creative vision, etc, etc... which aren't generally viewed as 'work'
Milamug wrote:
Kinda ripped out of context, this was about the job size and amount of time involved in retrospective to the amount payed. I was talking about the perceived value of a photographer who's PERCEIVED value is $100 an hour doing work for $15. And this goes back to the OP who stated he doesn't have that much time and rather have one big cheque instead of several smaller ones. To which I responded that a $3000 job, in general, costs just as much time as 10 $300 ones. And obviously, the size of and the amount of time spend on a shoot is one of the things that do set the 'worth'...Show more →
And this goes back to the OP who stated he doesn't have that much time and rather have one big cheque instead of several smaller ones. To which I responded that a $3000 job, in general, costs just as much time as 10 $300 ones. And obviously, the size of and the amount of time spend on a shoot is one of the things that do set the 'worth'
Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense or apply to the real world. There are plenty of photographers with great innate talent who boomed into the high-end in a short time.
There are others who were low-end for years because of poor marketing skills who got into the high-end much later.
Nor is there any correlation with the time spent on an individual shoot.
There just isn't any reliably direct correlation between time spent and money earned--certainly not a ratio as great as 10 to 1.
Obviously marketing and business skills are a big part of one's pricing structure, already stated that before. A photographer who's perceived value is $100 an hour (and I know, photography doesn't normally get charged by the hour, this is just for the sake of the discussion ) doing a $300 job which takes over 20 hours isn't a real world example either.
There's a major difference in a job (or a photographer for that matter) that has a perceived of value of $300 then one of $3000. Obviously most photographers will perform to the best of their abilities, but a $300 client will receive less than a $3000 client, whether it's in time, effort, skills, final product or whatever, imho
To be clear though, I'm talking about jobs done by a photographer who already has a perceived value. ie a $300 wedding coverage will get you a "shoot and burn", $3000 will get you decent formals, nice prints, maybe a nice book etc etc.
I know this isn't really the case for photographers who shoot mostly ads and the like where pay is more related to the usage. But even in that case they're not charging $300 for 20 hours work just because it's a one time use.
Shatterkiss and others; do you guys solely charge for usage and not for the work/time involved?
blob loblaw wrote:
...
You do get paid for your expertise, problem solving, people skills, creative vision, etc, etc... which aren't generally viewed as 'work'
...
[
maybe not viewed as work but these are major factors in one's perceived value.
Chip Payet wrote:
Ahhhhh, but if the destination doesn't matter, why are you bothering going anywhere and why are you even on a road in the first place? And if the destination doesn't matter, why would it matter which road you were on since any road could take you to any unimportant destination?
Of course, that's entirely different from saying that the destination is not as important as making the most out of the journey on your road to a specifically chosen, desired-but-ever-unattainable destination.
Just gotta warn ya -- I could have been a philosophy or psych major back in college, too. Heck, in my day job I pretty much have to be a shrink as it is. As long as there isn't any blood involved in portrait photography, it'll be a piece of cake. After all, while people might be tense or nervous in front of a camera, that's way easier than (for example) dealing with a woman who walks in and says, "You know, doc, I hate dentists so much I'd rather be seeing my OBGYN. Nothing personal, though."...Show more →
You're right the journey and destination are equally as important. however the grass is always greener on the other side, so better make the most out of the journey 'cause the final destination might be kind of a bummer.
As long as there isn't any blood involved in portrait photography, it'll be a piece of cake. 