radiodenver wrote:
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.
Isn't this covered under the supply and demand logic that you talked about in the stock photo thread?
I'm guessing this topic hits a little closer to home then stock photos do.
JPetty wrote:
I think the term is "what the market will bear". $16.00 per hour where I live is very good money.
Well, in the area in question (Chicago), that's not good money for a skilled person using their own equipment when the job is only 2 hours.
I've noticed that the people who comment that the rate isn't all that bad, don't seem to be paying attention to the fact that it's only 2 hours. Not 2 hours per day, or 2 hours per week. Just 2 hours!
So, for $32, you get to drive there (gas here is $3.19/gal, and around Chicago, you can't get anywhere directly--you always have to go someplace else, first!), shoot a T&I for 2 hours, drive back, and somehow get the paid, contracted photog (who couldn't be there for some reason) the shots. Would anyone be surprised if there was some hassle involved: getting there, parking, getting back, communication with the contracted photog, getting the photog the shots, getting paid...
I'm curious to contact him and ask him how it went....
Probably right about the supply and demand thing. Not very close to home though. I just think about students trying to get into photography...maybe this is what they have to look forward to.
It's beyond scary. When I talk to kids learning this, I advise them to enjoy the photography but learn something that will make them a good living. Hey, I just realized, you're local! HA! Small world.
Being a FT Photog (not pro) ... I wouldn't go for less than $75 + I don't care what it is!
Usually these kind of ppl don't care about quality. All they want is to get the job done, deliver some pix and make the $$$$$$$$$$$.
In my area, there are a few guys who hire (students/new photog) to shoot weds and other events. They are trained (2-3 weeks "P, Auto") and they are good to go. How much do they get paid/event? $100-$150 !!!!
These employees don't care about their reputation.... they know there's always coming their way
As a FULL-TIME photographer, I'm not guaranteed anything when I go on some of my shoots, so whatever I agree to pay my help has to be paid REGARDLESS of my sales for the day. So, I can understand playing it close to the vest when it comes to how much to pay another photographer.
As an example, I covered an event last week where I took an assistant (non-shooting) with me to handle the payments, envelopes, etc.....
I was told when setting up the job that there would be around one-hundred couples there and that they traditionally got around 50% participation (40-50 couples, right?). Well, it turns out the job was a complete waist of my time. We were there for nearly four hours and only GROSSED $250 dollars. My assistant was promised $10 per hour which meant I still had to pay her $70 dollars because her clock started when we left the studio and ended when we got back. Minus the prints, fuel cost, and time I'll be lucky to clear $100 dollars.
Let's play this out as if I hired another photographer to shoot this job. If I had agreed to pay them $16 an hour, I would have owed them $112 and the assistant $70 which would have left me with a GROSS profit of around $68 dollars. Factor in prints and other cost and this job would have cost me money.
My point in all this is that running a business is not always easy and you can't always pay people as well as you want. I look at a job and decide what I am comfortable GUARANTEEing my workers before I commit to something. If the job goes well and profits are up, I most often provide a bonus to them as part of the team. If the money isn't there, I pay them what I promised and bite my toungue if that comes up to more than I get to keep myself.
So, if you want to talk about how someone runs there business, try going FULL-TIME and seeing for yourself how different it can be.
I'll comment on another thing here that some seem to miss. As you mature as a FULL-TIME photographer you start to learn that being a photographer is what you do as a Professional BUSINESS PERSON. So, repeat after me...
I am a BUSINESS PERSON that sales photography services and products.
I am NOT a PHOTOGRAPHER that's in business.
If you don't believe this, just look around at how many sorry photographers stay in business because they understand something about their market and business while the GREAT photographer with the nice cameras shuts his doors because he/she can't get enough business to make it work.
The normal day rate over here for a non shooting experienced assistant is about $ 450. The photographers association recommends $ 230 an hour for commercial work and about $ 150 for editorial plus expenses (equipment, studio, assistant, etc). For $ 16 I could perhaps get an eastern block illegal to do some tiling work in my Sauna but that's about it.
You have your own sauna? I should come to Sweden and work as your assistant. I'm available for $16/hr (plus use of your sauna if you need me as a second shooter).
As a FULL-TIME photographer, I'm not guaranteed anything when I go on some of my shoots, so whatever I agree to pay my help has to be paid REGARDLESS of my sales for the day. So, I can understand playing it close to the vest when it comes to how much to pay another photographer.
That doesn't distinguish you from most other small business owners who hire temporary services.
I'm not saying that it does. My point is that a business owner has the right to offer a wage that he/she feels comfortable with REGARDLESS of what anyone here things and if there is someone out there willing to take the job knowing what it pays, then it's there choice to do so.
$16 is about average from what I've seen. Most of these business hire college kids and GWC to do this kind of work. Its fun for them and they gain a ton of experience.
You also need to remember they have a couple days of "office" work to go along with these shoots and if they are a decent company have other help on the day of the shoot. They also need to carry insurance. Yes, they do make money, but probably not as much as you guys think they do.
I did this on the side for about a year. Great experiance, but will never do it again. My wife doesn't understand the "math" either.
With all that said, have you ever looked at the quality of T&I shots? More times then not, they look like they were taken by a $16/hr. photographer. Who would pay the price that it would cost to hire "Pro" photographers? The $25 package would now cost you $50+. Serious drop of sales.
griffitg wrote:
Thanks, J. Curtis. Finally someone that seems to understand that there's more to the money question than what someone is getting paid on the surface.
Are you also agreeing with him that most photographers who do this line of work suck?
And the clients get what they pay for?
It's a business yes, but some of us choose not to rip others off on our way to make it. EVEN if it means less money in our pocket.
$10/hr for a non shooting person seems fair.
$16/hr for someone to cover your assignment is crazy.
If you as the owner book a gig that turns out to be a bust, it's on you not them.
Do a better job next time picking a better client/gig. The people you hire shouldn't pay the price for the business owners incompetence.
again, I think you are missing the point. an owner hasthe right to offer any rate he desires. I someone wants to take it, fine. if the market dictates a higher rate, then the owner has some decisions to make.
part of this too depends on the type of assignment. if we were talking about weddings, I may be more inclined to agree with the higher rates. however, we are talking about cookie-cutout work for teams. you take a shot of the kids then the team. it's not rocket science.
I could take a non-skilled person and teach them to do this in less than an hour.
"griffitg" (Do you have a real name?), I have one question for you:
Would you take a 2 hour job for $32? Using your own equipment. Driving there in your own car (assume whatever distance you want).
As OP, I quoted the original listing. The photog wanted someone who knew posing, not "someone with a good camera." That means someone who knows what they're doing.
If you'll shoot a 2 hour gig for $32, I'll have some work for you in the Spring. Outside Chicago.
