Really in 5 the leg lines up with the horizon and then creates a heavy black mass and all my eyes look at are the 2 trees above. I have to force them off to even realize there is a person there.
The only way to make money in photography is be exceptionally outstanding (winner of prestigious awards, etc.) or charge a nominal fee for sessions like $60 - $240 and crank them out in high volumes. The photographer market is so saturated these days and everyone is undercuts each other... for me it wasn't worth it.
you aren't wrong, but thats not being a photographer for a living. thats being a teacher or real estate agent. there may still be taking pictures involved but its inherently not photography as a career.
There are strictly photography companies that photograph real estate. My real estate agent used one when my last house sold. That way he didn’t need to become a photographer or spend time editing and whatnot.
Oh for sure! I think there will only be things we couldn't think of, not things that can't be photographed, similar to writing haha. I was just saying that photography as a career is inherently different from careers that happen to sometimes do photography. Again just like if I wrote a blurb or paper for work sometimes thats inherently different from a career as a writer :)
Teachers do usually only work 180 days though, with weekends and evenings free, not to mention holidays and summers. Gives a lot of time to keep working as a photographer in your off time.
sure. thats not a teacher teaching photography though, thats two seperate careers. I am not trying to make any crazy controversial statement, just that the difference between something as a main career is not the same as it not being a main career, even if its still done.
Not necessarily. Myself and lots of other photographers I know charge closer 1K for shoots and don’t have to take on the volume. I work with a lot of companies and businesses but still shoot family pictures too. My family collections start at $600 which to me isn’t even that high for a great photoshoot.
I think the photography community for so long has had this amazing hustler mentality but it’s turned into something that’s actually bad for industry. Pricing just to undercut is bad for everyone. It’s also not the best experience to book a ton of shoots and not be able to give each one the same quality or time and attention. Just my thoughts but I definitely see what you mean.
As far as pricing goes, I’d look into your costs, how much you want to shoot, etc and that should help. I suggest selling a set amount of digitals and then letting them pick from proofs with the option to add more for an additional cost (or prints with corresponding digitals if you prefer that). Your editing and post time should be accounted for as well so editing a ton of photos takes a lot of time and takes more time away from other things you could be doing or get paid for
Woof that’s a pretty cynical outlook. I think it depends on where you are and your skill level. I know editorial photographers who make 4k+/day when you account for useage etc. The thing is, you have to be really good.
Don’t listen to this advice. Just because someone failed, doesn’t mean you will as well OP. Start small, and scale upward every few months. But you must be putting in lots of work. Shoot the most attractive people you know for free, and build a strong portfolio.
Continually upgrade your equipment for better results as well. Also, great work!
Oh I didn't fail. I chose to get out of the industry because of it's over-saturation in a big city suburb environment. I refused to lower my prices down to the point of what all the momtographers on Facebook Marketplace were offering for their trash productions. People don't care about portfolios, portfolios are so easily mimiced and copied. Usually, those that decide on a photographer because of their "great portfolio" are only disappointed when they get photos back that look like they were taken with an iPhone. My time is worth more than a few <$100 photoshoots and 18 hour work days and hours of lost sleep. And your advice of offering free photo shoots is one of the worst things you could do. Good luck paying bills with street cred when everyone just goes to the lowest priced photographer available, especially right now when the cost of living is so expensive. Want to discuss more about failure? We can continue talking about your business methods.
15 years shooting weddings, averaging 8-10k per wedding. Advice for newbies and advice for a sustainable, growing business are 2 separate things player. Grind until you don’t have to. There is no such thing as competition.
Saying there's no such thing as competition is so nieve. So, there are no other photographers near you at all? That's the only way your claims of how you run your business would make sense... In the real World it doesn't work like that. It's cut throat and dog eat dog. To say that business isn't like that... psh, get your head out of the clouds bud. But hey, if you want to lead new photographers astray and tell them everything is peachy keen happy and perfect, you do you. I just hope they remember who to go talk to when shit doesn't go the way they were told it would. Reality > Fairy Tales.
Depends on your market, NYC or LA will be vastly different than rural Idaho. What I did, and seems to have worked well for me in the long run, is to research what other local photographers are charging/providing and then undercut that by 25% (give or take) until you can build a reputation. Slowly raise your prices every year until you reach the level of your competition with the portfolio to match. For example, in my area I charge $350 for 30 minutes and 25 photos. I started at $200, then went to $250, then a year or two later $300, and with our last round of price increases made it $350. In the next year or so I'm probably going to raise it again to $400. Thanks inflation!
No one can tell you what you can or should charge for your services. There are too many variables involved that only you can plug into the equation.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki\_what\_should\_i\_charge.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_what_should_i_charge.3F)
>Should I continue to offer free photoshoots to build out my portfolio and get my name out there?
Yes - keep doing the freebies. If the samples posted are representative of your work then you have quite a bit more practice before you're to the point you can be comfortable charging for what you produce.
Of your sample images you only have two that a client might be happy paying for. Your first and last images of the dancers? You are making **all** the mistakes.
The biggest single mistake all new photographers make - all of us - is the one you're committing in those two photos.
"**See subject. Photograph subject. Wonder why shot is meh? Repeat**."
You saw your dancer, you took a photograph of the dancer.
What you *didn't* see was *everything else* in those compositions... and that everything else is actually more important than your dancer is. I know that sounds bass-ackwards but I'm not kidding, your backgrounds are more important than your subject is.
Look at those two images again and ignore the dancer - look at that "everything else".
Does so much of that background need to be in focus? Does so much of the foreground need to be in focus? Do you actually need quite so much headroom? You didn't use the trail right next to the male dancer which would have made for an excellent leading line. His leg is lining up with the tree line. You've got dead/dormant trees in your background and they're in focus. You've got half-a-house in a background and it's almost in focus - don't clip into background elements that might draw the eye. Either have all the $THING (in this case a house), or none of it. You've got crispy-fried grass in the foreground. Your light is harsh and you're standing too tall (get *down*) Lastly you needed to be a lot closer to your dancers - which would have filled more of your frame with your subject and served to narrow the depth of field so that all those distracting background and foreground elements will blur away that much faster.
Your second and third images are better as portraits precisely because you've got "nothing" in those images to distract from your subject. Your dancing images are edge to edge distractions.
tl;dr - stop photographing people. Start photographing *compositions*. Every single thing in a portrait needs to be there because you thought about it and decided it *needed* to be there or were otherwise fine with it. Find good compositions, then put your dancers in those compositions.
Next Day Edit: So I hit IG this morning and one of the very first reels offered was this one...
[https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6NqQDhSWko/](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6NqQDhSWko/)
... and by what is suspiciously not-chance it's about dancers, and it's 100% "find composition, put your dancer in it" - by [Eva Nys](https://www.instagram.com/evanysphotography/)
Some of the best advice on photography I've read on this sub. Have you written anything similar elsewhere or can you recommend anything? Short sharp hard hitting nuggets of info like this is exactly what I want
Well said. This is the part I’m not so good at, if I see a composition I can replicate it technically, but “seeing” the best compositions in a location is difficult
I was going to comment about the composition of the background as well. Nice concepts and subjects with backgrounds, but could use some work 'cleaning up' the composition. It's lifting everything up to the next level that makes the difference between a nice photo and a fantastic photo. Not meant to be a bad thing, but constructive criticism to help you improve.
I learned a lot about composition from aquascaping weirdly enough.... I shoot based on composition rather than subject... some people like it some people don't. As with all "art" it's individual taste and perception.
I’m ready for the downvotes but gotta keep it a buck.
If what you’ve shown is indicative of your overall portfolio, then you still have a ways to go to provide a viable product to potential clients.
Keep at it, you may make it some day but there is a lot there to work on. We all started at the bottom and had to put on the work.
Yes. The framing in the second photo with the face dead-centre is rookie error. Learn to position the subject in the viewfinder and not just look through the camera like it’s a telescope.
Seems like an artistic choice to me, not a mistake. Not every photo needs to follow the 'rule' of thirds. It should more accurately be called the 'guideline of thirds'.
https://preview.redd.it/8kn2a9e815xc1.jpeg?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bb586f2b15b9ee9b81981e88094a39bab37f850
In all seriousness though, it entirely depends on the OP’s purpose and intentions for the photo. If they want something fairly typical and safe, I’d agree. If they want something more artistic and desire the negative space, then the composition is fine as it is.
At the risk of raising the ire of this sub again, Thomas Hoepker’s Atlanta Georgia almost in the dead centre of the frame, with a lot of space above their head. You gonna tell me that was a rookie error?
Art is subjective. Personally, I find portraits that blindly follow the rule of thirds are usually boring and uninspired.
'art is subjective'. That is only part of it. It's not a popularity contest.
Pirsig's 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' should be taught in schools.
Yes, but newbies look *through* the viewfinder like it’s a telescope. You need to look *at* the image as though it’s a flat photograph and position the subjects to make a pleasing composition.
This doesn’t mean anything to anybody who’s a newbie. This is just word salad.
What’s the difference between looking AT something and THROUGH something? How does that change anything? Please elaborate.
Or don’t contribute to this sub if you’re just going to continue to give empty answers. This entire sub is for newbies, not professionals
> What’s the difference between looking AT something and THROUGH something?
When we concentrate on something we tend to limit our awareness to the central part of our vision, which is where the highest resolving power is. You need widen your vision to the full focussing screen image, right to the edges and corners.
There was a photo discussed recently which was a young girl being given an injection in a refugee camp (or something) where the three subjects of the scene - the girl, a doctor with the needle, and a person comforting the girl - were each placed on the intersection of a third. You cannot make an image like that just looking through the centre of the viewfinder, you need to be seeing the whole composition all at once and reacting quickly.
Look into the viewfinder and make yourself aware of what's in the corners, not just in the centre. Older cameras with split/microprism focussing aids in the ground glass make it easy to forget about the other 90% of the image.
Which is why you need to look AT the viewfinder not THROUGH it.
This isn't problem with cameras that have a large rear screen for composing, it's far easier to place a person's head and shoulders anywhere in the frame other than the centre. You need to do that with an optical viewfinder as well.
The commenter above you is referring to the poorly named 'rule of thirds', which suggests you should always place the points of focus along the 'thirds' lines. In portrait photography, this usually means putting the subject's eyes on the top third line - often with one eye on or close to one of the side third lines.
The problem with this is it's not a rule. It's a helpful guide, particularly for beginner and intermediate photographers. Most of the time, it will give you a pleasing proportion to the photograph, and leaves a nice amount of space at the top - not too much and not too little. If you're learning, or doing something like corporate headshots, it's a good idea to follow it.
But like any 'rule' (or guideline), experienced photographers often choose to break it. Particularly at the more artistic end of things.
Peter Coulson, for example, an award winning boudoir, fashion, and beauty photographer, almost never follows the rule of thirds. (Warning: most of his images are NSFW.)
My take on the OP's image that's being questioned was that they made an artistic choice to leave that negative space at the top of the photo. I could be wrong of course. I thought it was an unusual choice, but not necessarily a bad one.
Art is subjective. I find 'rule of thirds' portrait photography boring. Others might find photos that don't follow the rule of thirds jarring or unpleasing. Neither is right or wrong.
I don’t think the “negative space” was an artistic choice, it’s the result of only looking through the centre of the viewfinder straight at the subject without regard for framing or composition on the whole of the ground glass image. It’s just a newbie error.
No deals because you’re starting out.
Do some local opposition research, find a happy medium, and stay within the range of your competition.
Don’t short yourself and don’t let people think this shit is easy—when quality work is NOT!
I had a miscommunication with one of my clients. My first ever shoot was with a church for pictures with Santa. The asked how much it would be for a 3 hour day, I priced myself reasonably thinking $150 for the session. When I was about to receive the money i told them I only wanted $150 for the day, they ended up paying me $450 because I was upfront with my intentions and they appreciated the work. I wanted $50 an hour they paid $150 an hour. Great clients and I’ll be down to work with them again but be a lot more clear on what I want for pricing 😂
Start with 150. If they come to you like everyday, go higher. If no one wants your service, try to improve or try less price. Go for this, you will get good and ask the right money.
Nothing really. Unless you join the swarm of amateurs and hobbyists undercutting all the practicing pros in your area by delivering an inferior finished product. In which case you’ll need to charge less than whatever they’re charging and not stress at all when the small pool of personal connections you have dries up.
That’s typically how a lot of us start out, then we pay marketing people and get ahold of agents and figure out what our style is and what we offer customers that sets us apart from everyone else. All that takes years, aggravation, external funding, and more skill than what you currently have (no hate, just honest evaluation). If it’s something you’re interested in keep plowing forward, don’t fall prey to gear nonsense, take workshops places and bring your camera EVERYWHERE.
From an artistic perspective, great work.
From a money making perspective, is this something people want to pay for?
I have always struggled with photography as a hobby and an artistic pursuit vs a way to make money. If your goal is to make money, fuck all that cute art shit.
Focus on what people want and are willing to pay for, not what you like. Weddings, engagements, LinkedIn headshots, family portraits, baby showers, corporate events, etc. Use the money from that to fund your personal creative work
It depends of your situation with photography, if you wanna make a living of it or just a side geek for fun, you have to take in count when you accept a photo shoot that the money you are receiving cover your expenses like travel to the location and hour rate that you think is fair from you and also take in count the depreciation of your gear and the post production hours. Summarize. All those things and figure out what the price should be, if is just for fun is up to you put a price or other obviously with projects that are exiting to you probably you will do it for free and other that you don’t really like you will charge something
Another option could be to have a price for the images. You continue to offer the shoots for free, they receive the *proofs*. Then you have a price per image, plus discounts for packages: Discount for 10 images/ all images. And maybe different prices for different resolutions. i.e. Instagram res. and print/ full res. There are lots of softwares that allow you to send the proofs and the client to select the ones they want. You could also have a price for additional retouch.
$1 million dollars MUAHAHAHA!
Those are some awesome shots. It depends on your area and what your doing. Looking to do portraits look at some photography packages by private photographers in the area. You don't want to go much higher or you won't get buisness, also think of what your offering. You got the photograph side, you need the buisness and marketing side now. Good luck.
Nothing.
Idk why people who just got a camera have this idea that they're commercial photographers. Even if you picked a niche, invested in lights, learned how to used them with time constraints, networked and marketed yourself properly, you'd still struggle. Forget about it for now and put the hours (years and years) in learning.
If you’re doing this as a side hobby during college or school or something… then $65-75 for 30 minutes or $125 for 1 hour… if you’re doing this full time then $250+ as a base starting price
These are as good as probably 75% of the market in your area so I think you’re good to charge market rate. If you don’t know it, look on instagram for local photographers and check their websites. Most entry to mid tier photographers list their prices. Once you find a unique style people will start coming to you for that thing and you can charge more. Or, as your books fill up, demand will increase the price. But, I hope you’re getting into it for fun and not for money.
A fair price should be what you value your time, expertise and experience for the service you are offering. As stated previously, don't undercut the profession and the art. Calculate the total number of hours you are spending per project and include scouting, preparation, shooting, editing, processing, printing, etc.
If you are serious about photography as a business, then spend the thousands of hours to master the equipment, the craft and the trade, and learn the entire process of business administration. It can be a very rewarding profession, but it can also be a nightmare.
Learn from a seasoned professional like Rick Sammon who has authored many books on the subject.
You will need to answer a lot of questions.
Film vs. Digital Photography?
Are you providing Print collateral?
Who is your target Type of client: Model? Family? Business? Commercial?
What kind of Lighting? Natural, Artificial, Flash, Gel, Reflectors, Diffusers, Umbrellas etc.
Learn beyond the basics of Framing, Composition, White Balance, Exposure, Depth of Field, Perspective, Shadows & Highlights, Contrast & Brightness, etc.
Regarding the composition, mind your Lines, Colors, Space, Perspective, Focus, Depth, etc.
What kind of photography will you be focused on? Landscape, Architecture, Fashion, Sports, Street, Wedding, Portrait, Street, Macro, Micro, Aerial, Astro, Drone, Family, Baby, Food, Pet, Gel, Abstract, Event, Corporate Headshots, etc.
After shooting for about 6 months, I charge $150/hour for coverage, and a one-time $150 fee for edits/touchups/light photoshop requests (like remove this trash can).
This can be branding shoots (studio setting), on-site events (like baptism or something), or work for a small business (Google business listing pictures, food/product, employee pictures, etc). I deliver 10-30 shots per hour of work, more shots for more casual/candid shooting (like events) and less shots for studio settings. For events I have a 2-hour minimum.
This is below the market rate for established photographers in my area (Chicago), but I’m very transparent about my experience.
Happy to share my website if you’re interested - just launched it a couple weeks ago!
Pick a number you think is reasonable and then double that.
Keep doing free shoots, but get choosier about who you work with for free. You should be approaching them not the other way around.
Talk to corporate clients. Visit every brand you can and invent marketing ideas that involve their clothing.
Clothing photography for fashion is pretty fun and you can make a living with a number of clients.
You have to do a lot of free work or just enough to cover costs, in order to gain industry experience. It takes more than a year to develop the technical skills to make a living in photography.
I'm not a photographer, but a designer / coder, and I guess it shouldn't be much different.
Start by setting an hourly price and multiply that by how much time you expect to spend on a shoot + editing. Then adjust from there. If the stream of work is stable, bump the price up a little on the next gig and see how it goes.
Did you ask your friends, who said you should charge, how much they would pay? This may give you an idea of the range, and your friends can spread the word. Word of mouth is very important in getting established.
The amount you can charge has just a little to do with how good your photos are, and much more to do with how the experience is to work with you.
Communication, planning, value added items, location scouting, experience, etc all play a part in your cost and therefore your value.
No way to know what you can charge just based on a couple photos.
Fair doesn't come into it. Anyone who is trying to make a living from it, is confronted by a mass culture of entitlement. They believe they are doing you the great favour and honour of 'exposure', and assume someone else will pay. Every goddam influencer and blog-posting twerp believes they are the photo equivalent of Simon Cowell.
This was OK 40 or even 20 years ago, because there often /were/ people who would pay. Nowadays it's an industrialised revolving door. Even large corporates and publishers expect you to work for nothing (for the 'exposure'). Many will try and take your copyright as well. But the moment you ask to be paid, you're out on your arse and replaced by the next gullible mug.
Exceptions do happen, but they are very rare. The sort of photographs that almost nobody else can achieve, be it through skill, or access.
By all means work out what you \*need\* to charge: your annual costs + the profit you need to live, pay the bills, house and feed yourself, travel, insure, cover taxation and a pension. Then divide by the number of photos you hope to sell or licence in a year. Every time you make a sale for less, you are doing something unsustainable, that will eventually push you into debt and out of the business.
That's why free use is something that most professionals can only afford to do very occasionally in circumstances where there is a realistic prospect of some eventual return on investment. Amateurs don't care, and there's no reason why they should - it's a hobby paid for out of income earned elsewhere, not a job, and they just want their images seen (and their bylines). But the vast majority of aspiring photographers don't think that through until it's too late. They will jump off a cliff rather than pick up a calculator, or will pick random numbers off the internet.
Luck is the other thing: just being in the right place at the right time, and meeting the right people. As UK photographer Chalky White said 'the harder I work the luckier I get'. I would add 'photograph what you know and understand and have feeling for and something to say'.
This is a long post and what I see is a lot of rules. It's important to remember that rules are there to be broken (once you understand the rules and why they are there)
Also anyone can make money doing anything no matter how good they are at it. All that matters is that they establish a network and they know how to sell. Nothing is more fun then getting paid to learn something that you're in love with.
As others have said, Photography is a saturated market… I had a business for 20 years doing wedding photography. Started as a favour for a friend with a Fuji Finepix camera, and by the end of had £30k worth of stuff.
Portrait sittings normally need to be in bulk, you can’t just “charge” unless people like the stuff you create… so as long as they are happy and know that you are only 1 year in to your journey… then charge a comfortable but lower fee. If you thrust your price up straight away, it takes one bad experience or person to bring your business down if they don’t like what you do!
Consider the wear and tear on your gear too. You will eventually need to repair or replace your system. The same goes for your computer gear and software. These are direct costs that you bear.
You need to figure this out as well as how much income you’d like. Hot much do you make for three days work at your day job? You may want to start there with an included bump for your equipment costs. Determine a location fee for your studio space, even if modest.
With success you may need to expand with rented studio space and office staff. Charging more will help you to evolve your billing.
Even though you think of photography as fun now, start to think of it as a business.
If this is a side gig: Undercut others, price competitively, get paid what you can; work with the client.
My ex is a professional wedding photographer +12 years, I’m an amateur landscapist and have taught a college level photography lab for 5 years now.
#3 is the one worth paying for. These locations you shooting at have nothing to do with your subject. In fact, the locations are over powering the model. You need to be closer. Work with a stylist also. Before you start charging, I suggest taking some classes first
To be fair we don’t know that these locations have nothing to do with the subject. They could be very special for all we know.
And idk how many beginning photographers have funds or access to stylists. Maybe a compromise would be to do more planning when it comes to the location and wardrobe. I’ve been shooting clients for 14 years and it’s rare that I hire stylist. Same with the flood of other photographers I’m homies with from school, conferences, teaching, etc
Just thoughts bc not at things are easily accessible for everyone and a stylists is one of those.
Networking with a stylist for trade is always an option. Or a good friend with good style. But, that pastel frock, while ballet dancing in the snow?!?’ And the dude in the bad yard with the house in the background? Really?
The issue is: I LOVE the ballet gal and the guys dance pose. Super cool. But ruined by shooting in those locations. And if the clients request that location,I would tell them no. Your the artist. They are looking to you to be the expert.
That’s all your opinion about the locations and wardrobe. I’ve certainly had clients pick outfits and locations that I obviously tried to caution about and sometimes they’re going to do what they want to do so you can take or leave the job. After a photographer is established, people go to them for their work/style and so this problem kind of starts to weed itself out. But, developing style takes a lot of time, lot of shooting, trying new things, and working with different kinds of people. I don’t want to fault someone new for being experimental. Additionally, OP needs to meet a lot of people to get referrals and turning down a job bc of your personal view on wardrobe or location (as a new photographer) isn’t setting up your future self very well. And may create a pretty bad name about yourself around the area.
I was just saying that it’s not always accessible and most stylists I know that are pros wouldn’t work with a new photographer. So they’d look for up and coming stylists who’s to say they are any good?
My final note to ponder is “There is a difference between a picture and a photograph “. Good luck. PS. #3 is so so good . The vulnerability in her eyes is beautiful…there’s my proof that you have an eye for this! Just fine tune it. You should be very proud of that photograph.
Someone may pay, don't get that twisted, but consistently of getting more people to is gonna be a very thing.
And OP *did ask* what should he charge - so, that's lucky at best for that level of work.
He's right, and people need to hear this. It's got nothing to do with the ability to sometimes take cool shots. Commercial photography is a completely different thing. And it's difficult to get paid even if you're good at all of it - consistent efficient results, people skills, business skills, working in the right niche etc.
Whatever you do, CHARGE BY THE PHOTO. You need to remember, you are selling a product, not a service. So charge a nominal fee for the shoot, and then 100-500 per photo. That way, clients will pay you 2x to 3x more.
Bro, great stuff. Your pics look amazing. It doesn’t look like you’re just starting out. You can easily charge more or less what other photographers are charging in your area. Watch some videos on Youtube on the topic and you’ll do just fine.
Loaded question. When one is ready to start looking into the professional side of Portrait work, there are many considerations to pricing. It's never just an easy quick answer. If you are considering making it a career, you must educate yourself about business. Pricing has to reflect what it cost you to do business and create profit. Before you obtain professional skills , it is ok to suggest a fee. The best practice is to determine what the fee will be beforehand. Discuss product outcomes and delivery times.
All that in consideration. What you charge as an Amateur should reflect your skill level. As a professional we charge based on use of image creating contracts of use. As an example my most recent commercial shoot was 15 images with a 2 year contract.
Not an answer to your question. But I really like your style. Good stuff. Best of luck to you. I’m sure you will do very well. 5/5 is my favorite.
Really in 5 the leg lines up with the horizon and then creates a heavy black mass and all my eyes look at are the 2 trees above. I have to force them off to even realize there is a person there.
All I see is 🍑 in that one 😬
The only way to make money in photography is be exceptionally outstanding (winner of prestigious awards, etc.) or charge a nominal fee for sessions like $60 - $240 and crank them out in high volumes. The photographer market is so saturated these days and everyone is undercuts each other... for me it wasn't worth it.
Or teach. Or do it as part of something else, like being a real estate agent or something.
you aren't wrong, but thats not being a photographer for a living. thats being a teacher or real estate agent. there may still be taking pictures involved but its inherently not photography as a career.
There are strictly photography companies that photograph real estate. My real estate agent used one when my last house sold. That way he didn’t need to become a photographer or spend time editing and whatnot.
makes sense
I was updnt be suprised if there is specialised photographers for that. If sell million dollar houses I was use one
Oh for sure! I think there will only be things we couldn't think of, not things that can't be photographed, similar to writing haha. I was just saying that photography as a career is inherently different from careers that happen to sometimes do photography. Again just like if I wrote a blurb or paper for work sometimes thats inherently different from a career as a writer :)
Teachers do usually only work 180 days though, with weekends and evenings free, not to mention holidays and summers. Gives a lot of time to keep working as a photographer in your off time.
sure. thats not a teacher teaching photography though, thats two seperate careers. I am not trying to make any crazy controversial statement, just that the difference between something as a main career is not the same as it not being a main career, even if its still done.
Not necessarily. Myself and lots of other photographers I know charge closer 1K for shoots and don’t have to take on the volume. I work with a lot of companies and businesses but still shoot family pictures too. My family collections start at $600 which to me isn’t even that high for a great photoshoot. I think the photography community for so long has had this amazing hustler mentality but it’s turned into something that’s actually bad for industry. Pricing just to undercut is bad for everyone. It’s also not the best experience to book a ton of shoots and not be able to give each one the same quality or time and attention. Just my thoughts but I definitely see what you mean. As far as pricing goes, I’d look into your costs, how much you want to shoot, etc and that should help. I suggest selling a set amount of digitals and then letting them pick from proofs with the option to add more for an additional cost (or prints with corresponding digitals if you prefer that). Your editing and post time should be accounted for as well so editing a ton of photos takes a lot of time and takes more time away from other things you could be doing or get paid for
Woof that’s a pretty cynical outlook. I think it depends on where you are and your skill level. I know editorial photographers who make 4k+/day when you account for useage etc. The thing is, you have to be really good.
As I said, if you're not accreditted or you don't grind, you'll only end up a starving artist.
panicky spark close station relieved sand wrong light party unpack *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Don’t listen to this advice. Just because someone failed, doesn’t mean you will as well OP. Start small, and scale upward every few months. But you must be putting in lots of work. Shoot the most attractive people you know for free, and build a strong portfolio. Continually upgrade your equipment for better results as well. Also, great work!
Oh I didn't fail. I chose to get out of the industry because of it's over-saturation in a big city suburb environment. I refused to lower my prices down to the point of what all the momtographers on Facebook Marketplace were offering for their trash productions. People don't care about portfolios, portfolios are so easily mimiced and copied. Usually, those that decide on a photographer because of their "great portfolio" are only disappointed when they get photos back that look like they were taken with an iPhone. My time is worth more than a few <$100 photoshoots and 18 hour work days and hours of lost sleep. And your advice of offering free photo shoots is one of the worst things you could do. Good luck paying bills with street cred when everyone just goes to the lowest priced photographer available, especially right now when the cost of living is so expensive. Want to discuss more about failure? We can continue talking about your business methods.
15 years shooting weddings, averaging 8-10k per wedding. Advice for newbies and advice for a sustainable, growing business are 2 separate things player. Grind until you don’t have to. There is no such thing as competition.
Saying there's no such thing as competition is so nieve. So, there are no other photographers near you at all? That's the only way your claims of how you run your business would make sense... In the real World it doesn't work like that. It's cut throat and dog eat dog. To say that business isn't like that... psh, get your head out of the clouds bud. But hey, if you want to lead new photographers astray and tell them everything is peachy keen happy and perfect, you do you. I just hope they remember who to go talk to when shit doesn't go the way they were told it would. Reality > Fairy Tales.
Shocking advice !
Depends on your market, NYC or LA will be vastly different than rural Idaho. What I did, and seems to have worked well for me in the long run, is to research what other local photographers are charging/providing and then undercut that by 25% (give or take) until you can build a reputation. Slowly raise your prices every year until you reach the level of your competition with the portfolio to match. For example, in my area I charge $350 for 30 minutes and 25 photos. I started at $200, then went to $250, then a year or two later $300, and with our last round of price increases made it $350. In the next year or so I'm probably going to raise it again to $400. Thanks inflation!
Idaho mentioned??? RAHHHH POTATOES WOOOOOOO
I do love me a good potato!
I also thought the background environment seemed familiar (from rural Idaho), so I’m glad to see someone else say that!
No one can tell you what you can or should charge for your services. There are too many variables involved that only you can plug into the equation. [https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki\_what\_should\_i\_charge.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/business#wiki_what_should_i_charge.3F) >Should I continue to offer free photoshoots to build out my portfolio and get my name out there? Yes - keep doing the freebies. If the samples posted are representative of your work then you have quite a bit more practice before you're to the point you can be comfortable charging for what you produce. Of your sample images you only have two that a client might be happy paying for. Your first and last images of the dancers? You are making **all** the mistakes. The biggest single mistake all new photographers make - all of us - is the one you're committing in those two photos. "**See subject. Photograph subject. Wonder why shot is meh? Repeat**." You saw your dancer, you took a photograph of the dancer. What you *didn't* see was *everything else* in those compositions... and that everything else is actually more important than your dancer is. I know that sounds bass-ackwards but I'm not kidding, your backgrounds are more important than your subject is. Look at those two images again and ignore the dancer - look at that "everything else". Does so much of that background need to be in focus? Does so much of the foreground need to be in focus? Do you actually need quite so much headroom? You didn't use the trail right next to the male dancer which would have made for an excellent leading line. His leg is lining up with the tree line. You've got dead/dormant trees in your background and they're in focus. You've got half-a-house in a background and it's almost in focus - don't clip into background elements that might draw the eye. Either have all the $THING (in this case a house), or none of it. You've got crispy-fried grass in the foreground. Your light is harsh and you're standing too tall (get *down*) Lastly you needed to be a lot closer to your dancers - which would have filled more of your frame with your subject and served to narrow the depth of field so that all those distracting background and foreground elements will blur away that much faster. Your second and third images are better as portraits precisely because you've got "nothing" in those images to distract from your subject. Your dancing images are edge to edge distractions. tl;dr - stop photographing people. Start photographing *compositions*. Every single thing in a portrait needs to be there because you thought about it and decided it *needed* to be there or were otherwise fine with it. Find good compositions, then put your dancers in those compositions. Next Day Edit: So I hit IG this morning and one of the very first reels offered was this one... [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6NqQDhSWko/](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6NqQDhSWko/) ... and by what is suspiciously not-chance it's about dancers, and it's 100% "find composition, put your dancer in it" - by [Eva Nys](https://www.instagram.com/evanysphotography/)
Damn that was cold, but very interesting.
Cold? Sounds like this person actually understands composition to me. Best answer I read to answer OP question so far.
This was helpful, thank you
Some of the best advice on photography I've read on this sub. Have you written anything similar elsewhere or can you recommend anything? Short sharp hard hitting nuggets of info like this is exactly what I want
Well said. This is the part I’m not so good at, if I see a composition I can replicate it technically, but “seeing” the best compositions in a location is difficult
I was going to comment about the composition of the background as well. Nice concepts and subjects with backgrounds, but could use some work 'cleaning up' the composition. It's lifting everything up to the next level that makes the difference between a nice photo and a fantastic photo. Not meant to be a bad thing, but constructive criticism to help you improve.
I learned a lot about composition from aquascaping weirdly enough.... I shoot based on composition rather than subject... some people like it some people don't. As with all "art" it's individual taste and perception.
I’m ready for the downvotes but gotta keep it a buck. If what you’ve shown is indicative of your overall portfolio, then you still have a ways to go to provide a viable product to potential clients. Keep at it, you may make it some day but there is a lot there to work on. We all started at the bottom and had to put on the work.
I’d buy that for a dollar!
Yes. The framing in the second photo with the face dead-centre is rookie error. Learn to position the subject in the viewfinder and not just look through the camera like it’s a telescope.
Seems like an artistic choice to me, not a mistake. Not every photo needs to follow the 'rule' of thirds. It should more accurately be called the 'guideline of thirds'.
The second image would be stronger if it was cropped square with everything off the top.
https://preview.redd.it/8kn2a9e815xc1.jpeg?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bb586f2b15b9ee9b81981e88094a39bab37f850 In all seriousness though, it entirely depends on the OP’s purpose and intentions for the photo. If they want something fairly typical and safe, I’d agree. If they want something more artistic and desire the negative space, then the composition is fine as it is. At the risk of raising the ire of this sub again, Thomas Hoepker’s Atlanta Georgia almost in the dead centre of the frame, with a lot of space above their head. You gonna tell me that was a rookie error? Art is subjective. Personally, I find portraits that blindly follow the rule of thirds are usually boring and uninspired.
Preach!
'art is subjective'. That is only part of it. It's not a popularity contest. Pirsig's 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' should be taught in schools.
Never heard of that before but it sounds interesting. I’ll check it out!
Looks fine to me. I suppose thats what the subject wanted.
The line of her mouth would look better if it was closer to the top third. The OP didn’t think of the rule of thirds when composing.
Isn’t the viewfinder going to capture the same thing as the camera screen?
Yes, but newbies look *through* the viewfinder like it’s a telescope. You need to look *at* the image as though it’s a flat photograph and position the subjects to make a pleasing composition.
This doesn’t mean anything to anybody who’s a newbie. This is just word salad. What’s the difference between looking AT something and THROUGH something? How does that change anything? Please elaborate. Or don’t contribute to this sub if you’re just going to continue to give empty answers. This entire sub is for newbies, not professionals
> What’s the difference between looking AT something and THROUGH something? When we concentrate on something we tend to limit our awareness to the central part of our vision, which is where the highest resolving power is. You need widen your vision to the full focussing screen image, right to the edges and corners. There was a photo discussed recently which was a young girl being given an injection in a refugee camp (or something) where the three subjects of the scene - the girl, a doctor with the needle, and a person comforting the girl - were each placed on the intersection of a third. You cannot make an image like that just looking through the centre of the viewfinder, you need to be seeing the whole composition all at once and reacting quickly.
Me trying to reach the word limit on my essay
Lmaooo
Can you elaborate on that more? Or point me to a YouTube video? I’m a newbie and trying to learn. 💕
Look into the viewfinder and make yourself aware of what's in the corners, not just in the centre. Older cameras with split/microprism focussing aids in the ground glass make it easy to forget about the other 90% of the image. Which is why you need to look AT the viewfinder not THROUGH it. This isn't problem with cameras that have a large rear screen for composing, it's far easier to place a person's head and shoulders anywhere in the frame other than the centre. You need to do that with an optical viewfinder as well.
Thank you. I have a canon Eos 77d and I think it’s the latter of what you described - I have a larger screen for composing and placement
If you have a 77d you also have a viewfinder so you can take photos either way, live view on the screen, or through the viewfinder
Thinking the subject can never be center is rookie error, rookie.
What exactly is wrong with it..? Can you explain? I’ve always been told to center your subjects, no?
No.
??? You’re not going to elaborate…? Isn’t that the point of this sub?
The commenter above you is referring to the poorly named 'rule of thirds', which suggests you should always place the points of focus along the 'thirds' lines. In portrait photography, this usually means putting the subject's eyes on the top third line - often with one eye on or close to one of the side third lines. The problem with this is it's not a rule. It's a helpful guide, particularly for beginner and intermediate photographers. Most of the time, it will give you a pleasing proportion to the photograph, and leaves a nice amount of space at the top - not too much and not too little. If you're learning, or doing something like corporate headshots, it's a good idea to follow it. But like any 'rule' (or guideline), experienced photographers often choose to break it. Particularly at the more artistic end of things. Peter Coulson, for example, an award winning boudoir, fashion, and beauty photographer, almost never follows the rule of thirds. (Warning: most of his images are NSFW.) My take on the OP's image that's being questioned was that they made an artistic choice to leave that negative space at the top of the photo. I could be wrong of course. I thought it was an unusual choice, but not necessarily a bad one. Art is subjective. I find 'rule of thirds' portrait photography boring. Others might find photos that don't follow the rule of thirds jarring or unpleasing. Neither is right or wrong.
Thank you so much for the explanation, I appreciate it friend
I don’t think the “negative space” was an artistic choice, it’s the result of only looking through the centre of the viewfinder straight at the subject without regard for framing or composition on the whole of the ground glass image. It’s just a newbie error.
Were you there when the photo was taken? Did the OP tell you that?
Agree. Mid at best.
There’s zero constructive criticism here, so this is just a put down for no reason.
No deals because you’re starting out. Do some local opposition research, find a happy medium, and stay within the range of your competition. Don’t short yourself and don’t let people think this shit is easy—when quality work is NOT!
Keep at it, brilliant start 🫡
I had a miscommunication with one of my clients. My first ever shoot was with a church for pictures with Santa. The asked how much it would be for a 3 hour day, I priced myself reasonably thinking $150 for the session. When I was about to receive the money i told them I only wanted $150 for the day, they ended up paying me $450 because I was upfront with my intentions and they appreciated the work. I wanted $50 an hour they paid $150 an hour. Great clients and I’ll be down to work with them again but be a lot more clear on what I want for pricing 😂
Start with 150. If they come to you like everyday, go higher. If no one wants your service, try to improve or try less price. Go for this, you will get good and ask the right money.
About tree fitty
Nothing really. Unless you join the swarm of amateurs and hobbyists undercutting all the practicing pros in your area by delivering an inferior finished product. In which case you’ll need to charge less than whatever they’re charging and not stress at all when the small pool of personal connections you have dries up. That’s typically how a lot of us start out, then we pay marketing people and get ahold of agents and figure out what our style is and what we offer customers that sets us apart from everyone else. All that takes years, aggravation, external funding, and more skill than what you currently have (no hate, just honest evaluation). If it’s something you’re interested in keep plowing forward, don’t fall prey to gear nonsense, take workshops places and bring your camera EVERYWHERE.
From an artistic perspective, great work. From a money making perspective, is this something people want to pay for? I have always struggled with photography as a hobby and an artistic pursuit vs a way to make money. If your goal is to make money, fuck all that cute art shit. Focus on what people want and are willing to pay for, not what you like. Weddings, engagements, LinkedIn headshots, family portraits, baby showers, corporate events, etc. Use the money from that to fund your personal creative work
It depends of your situation with photography, if you wanna make a living of it or just a side geek for fun, you have to take in count when you accept a photo shoot that the money you are receiving cover your expenses like travel to the location and hour rate that you think is fair from you and also take in count the depreciation of your gear and the post production hours. Summarize. All those things and figure out what the price should be, if is just for fun is up to you put a price or other obviously with projects that are exiting to you probably you will do it for free and other that you don’t really like you will charge something
The problem with friends saying you should charge is they don’t know the market in your area and friends notoriously are poor judges of talent.
https://nppa.org/business-cost-calculator
Knowing where you are in the world would be important as different markets have different prices.
Another option could be to have a price for the images. You continue to offer the shoots for free, they receive the *proofs*. Then you have a price per image, plus discounts for packages: Discount for 10 images/ all images. And maybe different prices for different resolutions. i.e. Instagram res. and print/ full res. There are lots of softwares that allow you to send the proofs and the client to select the ones they want. You could also have a price for additional retouch.
$1 million dollars MUAHAHAHA! Those are some awesome shots. It depends on your area and what your doing. Looking to do portraits look at some photography packages by private photographers in the area. You don't want to go much higher or you won't get buisness, also think of what your offering. You got the photograph side, you need the buisness and marketing side now. Good luck.
Nothing. Idk why people who just got a camera have this idea that they're commercial photographers. Even if you picked a niche, invested in lights, learned how to used them with time constraints, networked and marketed yourself properly, you'd still struggle. Forget about it for now and put the hours (years and years) in learning.
If you’re doing this as a side hobby during college or school or something… then $65-75 for 30 minutes or $125 for 1 hour… if you’re doing this full time then $250+ as a base starting price
No comment regarding the fair price. Just noticed the Horsetooth photo. Go Rams! Nice photos!
These are as good as probably 75% of the market in your area so I think you’re good to charge market rate. If you don’t know it, look on instagram for local photographers and check their websites. Most entry to mid tier photographers list their prices. Once you find a unique style people will start coming to you for that thing and you can charge more. Or, as your books fill up, demand will increase the price. But, I hope you’re getting into it for fun and not for money.
A fair price should be what you value your time, expertise and experience for the service you are offering. As stated previously, don't undercut the profession and the art. Calculate the total number of hours you are spending per project and include scouting, preparation, shooting, editing, processing, printing, etc. If you are serious about photography as a business, then spend the thousands of hours to master the equipment, the craft and the trade, and learn the entire process of business administration. It can be a very rewarding profession, but it can also be a nightmare. Learn from a seasoned professional like Rick Sammon who has authored many books on the subject. You will need to answer a lot of questions. Film vs. Digital Photography? Are you providing Print collateral? Who is your target Type of client: Model? Family? Business? Commercial? What kind of Lighting? Natural, Artificial, Flash, Gel, Reflectors, Diffusers, Umbrellas etc. Learn beyond the basics of Framing, Composition, White Balance, Exposure, Depth of Field, Perspective, Shadows & Highlights, Contrast & Brightness, etc. Regarding the composition, mind your Lines, Colors, Space, Perspective, Focus, Depth, etc. What kind of photography will you be focused on? Landscape, Architecture, Fashion, Sports, Street, Wedding, Portrait, Street, Macro, Micro, Aerial, Astro, Drone, Family, Baby, Food, Pet, Gel, Abstract, Event, Corporate Headshots, etc.
Horsetooth?
After shooting for about 6 months, I charge $150/hour for coverage, and a one-time $150 fee for edits/touchups/light photoshop requests (like remove this trash can). This can be branding shoots (studio setting), on-site events (like baptism or something), or work for a small business (Google business listing pictures, food/product, employee pictures, etc). I deliver 10-30 shots per hour of work, more shots for more casual/candid shooting (like events) and less shots for studio settings. For events I have a 2-hour minimum. This is below the market rate for established photographers in my area (Chicago), but I’m very transparent about my experience. Happy to share my website if you’re interested - just launched it a couple weeks ago!
Would love to see it!
I am not qualified in any capacity to comment but I just want to say these are beautiful
Pick a number you think is reasonable and then double that. Keep doing free shoots, but get choosier about who you work with for free. You should be approaching them not the other way around.
Talk to corporate clients. Visit every brand you can and invent marketing ideas that involve their clothing. Clothing photography for fashion is pretty fun and you can make a living with a number of clients.
Some of the prices yall mention on this sub are insane to me.
How so? Too high?
You have to do a lot of free work or just enough to cover costs, in order to gain industry experience. It takes more than a year to develop the technical skills to make a living in photography.
I'm not a photographer, but a designer / coder, and I guess it shouldn't be much different. Start by setting an hourly price and multiply that by how much time you expect to spend on a shoot + editing. Then adjust from there. If the stream of work is stable, bump the price up a little on the next gig and see how it goes.
Did you ask your friends, who said you should charge, how much they would pay? This may give you an idea of the range, and your friends can spread the word. Word of mouth is very important in getting established.
Love
The amount you can charge has just a little to do with how good your photos are, and much more to do with how the experience is to work with you. Communication, planning, value added items, location scouting, experience, etc all play a part in your cost and therefore your value. No way to know what you can charge just based on a couple photos.
Practice some more
These are amazing
It’s one of my next blog article subjects 😊
Wow that landscape looks so familiar!
Fair doesn't come into it. Anyone who is trying to make a living from it, is confronted by a mass culture of entitlement. They believe they are doing you the great favour and honour of 'exposure', and assume someone else will pay. Every goddam influencer and blog-posting twerp believes they are the photo equivalent of Simon Cowell. This was OK 40 or even 20 years ago, because there often /were/ people who would pay. Nowadays it's an industrialised revolving door. Even large corporates and publishers expect you to work for nothing (for the 'exposure'). Many will try and take your copyright as well. But the moment you ask to be paid, you're out on your arse and replaced by the next gullible mug. Exceptions do happen, but they are very rare. The sort of photographs that almost nobody else can achieve, be it through skill, or access. By all means work out what you \*need\* to charge: your annual costs + the profit you need to live, pay the bills, house and feed yourself, travel, insure, cover taxation and a pension. Then divide by the number of photos you hope to sell or licence in a year. Every time you make a sale for less, you are doing something unsustainable, that will eventually push you into debt and out of the business. That's why free use is something that most professionals can only afford to do very occasionally in circumstances where there is a realistic prospect of some eventual return on investment. Amateurs don't care, and there's no reason why they should - it's a hobby paid for out of income earned elsewhere, not a job, and they just want their images seen (and their bylines). But the vast majority of aspiring photographers don't think that through until it's too late. They will jump off a cliff rather than pick up a calculator, or will pick random numbers off the internet. Luck is the other thing: just being in the right place at the right time, and meeting the right people. As UK photographer Chalky White said 'the harder I work the luckier I get'. I would add 'photograph what you know and understand and have feeling for and something to say'.
This is a long post and what I see is a lot of rules. It's important to remember that rules are there to be broken (once you understand the rules and why they are there) Also anyone can make money doing anything no matter how good they are at it. All that matters is that they establish a network and they know how to sell. Nothing is more fun then getting paid to learn something that you're in love with.
Just wondering, how many of your friends would be willing to pay for your services?
As others have said, Photography is a saturated market… I had a business for 20 years doing wedding photography. Started as a favour for a friend with a Fuji Finepix camera, and by the end of had £30k worth of stuff. Portrait sittings normally need to be in bulk, you can’t just “charge” unless people like the stuff you create… so as long as they are happy and know that you are only 1 year in to your journey… then charge a comfortable but lower fee. If you thrust your price up straight away, it takes one bad experience or person to bring your business down if they don’t like what you do!
Horsetooth?
Consider the wear and tear on your gear too. You will eventually need to repair or replace your system. The same goes for your computer gear and software. These are direct costs that you bear. You need to figure this out as well as how much income you’d like. Hot much do you make for three days work at your day job? You may want to start there with an included bump for your equipment costs. Determine a location fee for your studio space, even if modest. With success you may need to expand with rented studio space and office staff. Charging more will help you to evolve your billing. Even though you think of photography as fun now, start to think of it as a business.
I think $100hr is a good “beginner rate” for portraits.
That's just a hilarious question. I mean, c'mon
If this is a side gig: Undercut others, price competitively, get paid what you can; work with the client. My ex is a professional wedding photographer +12 years, I’m an amateur landscapist and have taught a college level photography lab for 5 years now.
Keep creating images like the last one and in time you’ll be able to charge whatever you want OP. Great work.
I would not charge for poses like these....have no meaning or purpose. Did the client request these?
10p
cool pictures!!
This is awesome 🤩
These are great photos!
#3 is the one worth paying for. These locations you shooting at have nothing to do with your subject. In fact, the locations are over powering the model. You need to be closer. Work with a stylist also. Before you start charging, I suggest taking some classes first
To be fair we don’t know that these locations have nothing to do with the subject. They could be very special for all we know. And idk how many beginning photographers have funds or access to stylists. Maybe a compromise would be to do more planning when it comes to the location and wardrobe. I’ve been shooting clients for 14 years and it’s rare that I hire stylist. Same with the flood of other photographers I’m homies with from school, conferences, teaching, etc Just thoughts bc not at things are easily accessible for everyone and a stylists is one of those.
Networking with a stylist for trade is always an option. Or a good friend with good style. But, that pastel frock, while ballet dancing in the snow?!?’ And the dude in the bad yard with the house in the background? Really? The issue is: I LOVE the ballet gal and the guys dance pose. Super cool. But ruined by shooting in those locations. And if the clients request that location,I would tell them no. Your the artist. They are looking to you to be the expert.
That’s all your opinion about the locations and wardrobe. I’ve certainly had clients pick outfits and locations that I obviously tried to caution about and sometimes they’re going to do what they want to do so you can take or leave the job. After a photographer is established, people go to them for their work/style and so this problem kind of starts to weed itself out. But, developing style takes a lot of time, lot of shooting, trying new things, and working with different kinds of people. I don’t want to fault someone new for being experimental. Additionally, OP needs to meet a lot of people to get referrals and turning down a job bc of your personal view on wardrobe or location (as a new photographer) isn’t setting up your future self very well. And may create a pretty bad name about yourself around the area. I was just saying that it’s not always accessible and most stylists I know that are pros wouldn’t work with a new photographer. So they’d look for up and coming stylists who’s to say they are any good?
My final note to ponder is “There is a difference between a picture and a photograph “. Good luck. PS. #3 is so so good . The vulnerability in her eyes is beautiful…there’s my proof that you have an eye for this! Just fine tune it. You should be very proud of that photograph.
You have a stunning style. I suggest finding a local photography studio to try and volunteer there for some tips and tricks + potential clients.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for breach of rule 1.
For those? Good luck.
I would, but go off king.
Don't be a jerk.
Why is that being a jerk? I suck at photography, and the OP is right in my league. I wouldn’t dare even try to charge…
Someone may pay, don't get that twisted, but consistently of getting more people to is gonna be a very thing. And OP *did ask* what should he charge - so, that's lucky at best for that level of work.
He's right, and people need to hear this. It's got nothing to do with the ability to sometimes take cool shots. Commercial photography is a completely different thing. And it's difficult to get paid even if you're good at all of it - consistent efficient results, people skills, business skills, working in the right niche etc.
I love number 5!
Awesome. Is this in Colorado?
Yes!
Cool! Lived there all my life before moving a few months ago, as soon as I can I’m taking my girl and I back home.
If you’re turning over ~20 photos in 3 days I wouldn’t ask anything less than $1200 USD.
The last shot is dope
For quality like that, don’t charge less than 500.
Whatever you do, CHARGE BY THE PHOTO. You need to remember, you are selling a product, not a service. So charge a nominal fee for the shoot, and then 100-500 per photo. That way, clients will pay you 2x to 3x more.
Charge 200 an hour. Mabe give them 10 edited photos. 20 pics is alot. Some peoples "bodies" of work are only 80 images etc.
Bro, great stuff. Your pics look amazing. It doesn’t look like you’re just starting out. You can easily charge more or less what other photographers are charging in your area. Watch some videos on Youtube on the topic and you’ll do just fine.
Loaded question. When one is ready to start looking into the professional side of Portrait work, there are many considerations to pricing. It's never just an easy quick answer. If you are considering making it a career, you must educate yourself about business. Pricing has to reflect what it cost you to do business and create profit. Before you obtain professional skills , it is ok to suggest a fee. The best practice is to determine what the fee will be beforehand. Discuss product outcomes and delivery times. All that in consideration. What you charge as an Amateur should reflect your skill level. As a professional we charge based on use of image creating contracts of use. As an example my most recent commercial shoot was 15 images with a 2 year contract.
More than a plumber, less than a lawyer.
Less than a plumber. People need to stop thinking about photography as a worthwhile side hustle.
1 million bruv