James Jackson wrote:
wow...it's getting deep in here BCG....

Smells like ....

your upper lip???

BCG wrote:
your upper lip???

Nah...smells like every one of your other posts...

James Jackson wrote:

Nah...smells like every one of your other posts...

wisdom must smell sweet!!!

BCG wrote:

wisdom must smell sweet!!!

You know what they say... "Only two things attract flies, so you must be either really sweet or full of shit."

James Jackson wrote:

You know what they say... "Only two things attract flies, so you must be either really sweet or full of shit."

the ladies will tell you i am sweeter than sugar.

BCG wrote:

the ladies will tell you i am sweeter than sugar.

And your posts both past and present tell me you're so full of shit your eyes are brown...

"Every photographer who wouldn't accept my $40 is now out of business" ROFLMAO

J. Newton wrote:
Glad you put quotes around professional even if you did spell it incorrectly.  Yes the pool of professional photographers will shrink but not for the reason you propose.  The pool will shrink because the professional will not be able to make a living.  Too many amateurs will accept your $40 per hour to shoot for experience leaving you with an inferior product to give to your client and even fewer professionals available for future projects.  If you sit down and figure the overhead that a professional photographer has you will quickly see that 40 per does not come close to meeting their costs of equipment, studio, the mega doses of insurance from health to life to liability and beyond.  A more reasonable figure from both sides might have more in the 75-100 range and of course copyrights would belong to the "client" who was paying for the whole thing.

Just my tuppence worth.

JN

the dudes that did show up are still in business...while the high rate demand of some projects will always be there, budgets are being curtailed by both the corporate and personal levels and the client must see a percieved value for their $$$.

James Jackson wrote:
wow...it's getting deep in here BCG....

Smells like ....

Teen Spirit? 

I had too... sorry.  We now return to your regularly scheduled Mayhem, already in progress.

BCG wrote:

the dudes that did show up are still in business...while the high rate demand of some projects will always be there, budgets are being curtailed by both the corporate and personal levels and the client must see a percieved value for their $$$.

I'd tend to agree with J. Newton the only people being hurt are the real professionals who make their entire living strictly from photography.  $40.00 an hour is not a lot when you consider all the out of pocket expenses and overhead for time, equipment, transportation, etc..  I realize most photogs have to startout getting jobs by not having the highest rates, but if you intend to make a living at it, you also have to make a profit.

-R

J. Newton wrote:
Don't want to prolong this agony so this will be the end of my responses but just how long will the 40 per guys be in business?  They probably don't even know about having things like insurance and as soon as they get their first law suit or first major illness and find they have no insurance to cover it they'll be collecting welfare.  Being available to work for your small hourly fee is not a real good indication of how solid their businesses are.

JN

they ALL survived the post 911 slump...the demanding divas did not...$200.00 bucks is NOT a bad return for showing up with nothing but a camera and disconnecting with no post production resposibilities...PLUS...i took them all out for beers at coyote ugly!!!

Robert Hayes wrote:

I'd tend to agree with J. Newton the only people being hurt are the real professionals who make their entire living strictly from photography.  $40.00 an hour is not a lot when you consider all the out of pocket expenses and overhead for time, equipment, transportation, etc..  I realize most photogs have to startout getting jobs by not having the highest rates, but if you intend to make a living at it, you also have to make a profit.

-R

i paid for parking and had the setups ready so when they arrived, with a single camera, they could start to work...i would have accepted that assignment.

BCG wrote:

they ALL survived the post 911 slump...the demanding divas did not...$200.00 bucks is NOT a bad return for showing up with nothing but a camera and disconnecting with no post production resposibilities...PLUS...i took them all out for beers at coyote ugly!!!

I have to admit, $200 isn't completely awful...it's just bottom of the barrel...the bare minimum someone should pay to have a guy with a DSLR show up to an event...I've heard of worse rates though.  I just take issue with the assertion that *all the photographers* who didn't accept your offer are out of business...

James Jackson wrote:

I have to admit, $200 isn't completely awful...it's just bottom of the barrel...the bare minimum someone should pay to have a guy with a DSLR show up to an event...I've heard of worse rates though.  I just take issue with the assertion that *all the photographers* who didn't accept your offer are out of business...

take issue and take over their studios, as they are empty...the market here is different than in other major markets...and i bet i could hire and train a busload of ford workers at $8.00 an hour to do a BETTER job.

BCG wrote:
i paid for parking and had the setups ready so when they arrived, with a single camera, they could start to work...i would have accepted that assignment.

I probably wouldn't have turned down that assignment either, but then again I don't have a full studio, tons of equipment, or dependants for that matter.  Don't get me wrong, $40.00 an hour isn't too bad if all the post production costs fall to someone else..  It's just that most people don't realize just how expensive it really is for photographers, and that it is a living for them.

-R

Robert Hayes wrote:

i paid for parking and had the setups ready so when they arrived, with a single camera, they could start to work...i would have accepted that assignment.

I probably wouldn't have turned down that assignment either, but then again I don't have a full studio, tons of equipment, or dependants for that matter.  Don't get me wrong, $40.00 an hour isn't too bad if all the post production costs fall to someone else..  It's just that most people don't realize just how expensive it really is for photographers, and that it is a living for them.

-R

i am intimately aware of the  costs and was being VERY generous with my offer...the lab bill alone was  over $4,800 bucks!!!

BCG wrote:
too many comments on gals who charge rates that do not equate to their experience...recently i needed to hire a group of shooters @ $40.00 an hour for 5 hours to do nothing but shoot couples at a large corporate event...i supplied the lighting, setup, and film...all they had to do was hook up and shoot...EVERY shooter who turned down the gig because they demanded $125.00 per hour plus extra for copyrights is now out  of business...the industry had changed so much since then as well and i believe the pool of "profesional" talent to draw on will shrink even more due to the  very unrealistic expectations by photographers.

My understanding is that an event rate of $125 per hour isn't unreasonable.  Sure, there was no post production involved and you sprang for parking, supplies and refreshment, but still, I had photography mentors who maintain that $125 per hour event rate could be charged by a beginner  I don't knock anyone for sticking to their principles by not accepting a rate they feel isn't fair or suggesting one that is. 

Perhaps they simply closed their studios to elimanate an overhead cost that can't be covered by $40 an hour gigs...

BCG wrote:

Robert Hayes wrote:

i paid for parking and had the setups ready so when they arrived, with a single camera, they could start to work...i would have accepted that assignment.

I probably wouldn't have turned down that assignment either, but then again I don't have a full studio, tons of equipment, or dependants for that matter.  Don't get me wrong, $40.00 an hour isn't too bad if all the post production costs fall to someone else..  It's just that most people don't realize just how expensive it really is for photographers, and that it is a living for them.

-R

i am intimately aware of the  costs and was being VERY generous with my offer...the lab bill alone was  over $4,800 bucks!!!

well ya shoulda had digital photographers shoot it and ya woulda saved $$$$
Put the pics online and have the people order it online...no muss no fuss

JBPhoto wrote:
Are you two boyfriends?
You argue like a couple of queens.

But... but... what if they are a couple from Brooklyn?

JBPhoto wrote:
Are you two boyfriends?
You argue like a couple of queens.

I take that as a compliment...

Have you seen queens argue!!!  Never have I seen so many snaps per second

oh no he didn....

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
There ia a point below which you do not shoot.
I got into shooting because I was making voulme corrections on photoshop for photographers.
The amount of work I did for  older experienced photographers was limited to cropping and upsizing photos ( for billboards).

Professionals have significant  investment in equipment. Several thousands of dollars in lenses, another  several thousand in cameras and studio costs, insurance, taxes, etc.

Professionals know what hourly rate is the break even point: working below that rate is not a choice.

Weekenders on the other hand show uo with a $400 camera and snap away. $40 is big money.  $40 dollars does not cover my broadband costs for one week!

I still do photoshop work for a magazine - that does not pay photographers, they work for 'tear sheets' - and I still have to go in and rework the photos to get them magazine acceptable.

So you get what you pay for. Shooting the baseball game is $40. Shooting an opening event for a client demands you pay for experience.

Hmm, I have to disagree with you. Some of us have our stuff paid off, and we just shoot because we love it, we don't have anything better to do, or we just want the experience.

Personally, I've never known anyone who can depend on one shoot a month paying all of their bills. Even one of the most successful photographers I know works between 4 and 6 days a week. But then again, not everyone gauges their prices once they get a year or two of experience under their belt, either.

BCG wrote:

wisdom must smell sweet!!!

LOL.. i love it... BCG you get slammed with every post you make.. take your hand off the gun

JBPhoto wrote:
Are you two boyfriends?
You argue like a couple of queens.

Hahaha..i'm starting to think thats the case.. i think we have a domestic disturbance going on here.

UdoR wrote:

But... but... what if they are a couple from Brooklyn?

Then they just argue in Spanish.... LOL

Studio36

DanPhoto wrote:
Anybody today calls themself photographers. They dont need much brains and talent the camera is smarter then them.  Again a lot of folks dont care for quality just $$. You get what you pay for. You can shop at W-mart or at Sacks.  Just think that if something should happen to your equipement is the person doing the hiring going to pay for the repair?? most likely not. Most photographers dont run it like a business. You have to factor plenty of expenses. Insurance = health,liability,dissability ( what happends if you become disable? suck wind) are you saving for retirement? dont count on SSI. Oh yea you claim very little income to uncle sam , guess what you wont get much on your retirement.  Payroll taxes, cost to maintain your house and or studio? Is your credit card maxed out or you paid up. Yeah be self employed and work for $40 /hr  you will never be in black but always in RED borrow from Peter to pay Paul.
Talk to the Lab and album companies  and see who is paying the bill on time. How many of you actually have a business savings account? yes you read correct not a personal but buss account. Yeap $40/hr is for wanna be.  Sorry $200 /hr sound more reasonable.

believe me...i made much more than $200.00 bucks per hour on that gig.

JBPhoto wrote:
Are you two boyfriends?
You argue like a couple of queens.

i can not attest for reven...but i am hopelessly hetero...but i will say this...if i was a chic...i would date me.