David

David

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 18, 2001

Comments

Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8
In reply to:

english_Wolf: Repair, maintenance are fully deductible; exception: software.

WEB cost is grossly exaggerated. The cost of high speed is about $50.00 per month, the cost of ISP for storage is now in abysmally low.

Real cost of a wedding for the photographer takes a fraction of all the above especially when the 'studio' does other things. Like the mentioned family and senior portrait.

What the responder did not (for good reason?) approach is the difference quality between and mediocrity. Regardless of economic climate you pay for what you get, end of the ONLY story.
According to what I read this photographer is not worth any money she claims. She cannot even figure out her own cost!!! So take pictures?

The only things you can itemize as direct cost of a wedding are:

Digital photographer
Time passed to PP SOME of the pictures
Cost of media (disk or like media to deliver)

Cross over cost (digital/traditional)

$50 per month for a 10 to 15Mbps upstream bandwidth? In North America, you'll be lucky to get 1Mbps which is not even fast enough to upload large RAW file or JPEGs in a fast enough time. All broadband service advertise FAST downstream (download) speed in the 10 or higher Mbps bandwidth. That's not going to help Nikki upload photos!

A typical North American provider provides up to 512kbps upstream bandwidth. I really love to know where I can get 10 to 15Mbps for $30 or $50 a month and which State?

Thanks,

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

jagge: sorry i am absolutely on the bride side. Sorry but 3k is a high price. Now off course if you are wanting the most spectacular photographer you have to pay the prize, no doubt about it, free market. BUT if 3k is supposed to be the "normal" rate and you then get this reply that in all honesty is a bit rich.

Sorry the season is "4 months", very well that might be but I dont think its reasonably to assume that you can base your entire income on that and put your prices accordingly. Well its a free world. If anyone will pay 3k for a wedding photograper be my guest. I applaud those who can charge rates like that, honestly. BUT trying to argue that that price is more than fair, and almost getting to the point that it actually is almost a bad deal for the photographer is a bit pathetic.

Sorry I dont find that response very compelling or convincing. She could shoot 3 weedings a month, use a week on each and lay in the sun the rest of the time with a 9k income. Thats quite ok, come on.....

J

Jakob,

The beauty of the free market is that it naturally sets the price. If $3000 is too much, you'll won't pay it, but that's what today's market is willing to bear. What we are debating here is simply the "VALUE" we place on things we buy. Price consummates value. Some people are happy with a Ford Focus, but some people value a Ferrari. Both takes you from point A to B. There is no sense in this debate, because that's exactly we are discussing. Why isn't a Ferrari priced the same as a Ford Focus when both of them have 4 wheels and an engine?

Mostly photographers working full time have a business plan and a credit line. A stable income is important because you need to have the ability to ABSORB the inflation cost to a certain extent of running a business without passing it to your clients. If you raise prices, you'll loose clients. If you don't raise prices, you'll risk going bankrupt!
I suspect most people run a part time business with a day job to support expenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

wil13jak: Reading the posts on this forum and in general on most of the forums on this site one should never be surprised as to why humans will never be able to live in an "agreeable" world. There are but a small few who have posted here that have made statements that are remotely logical and intelligent. Most of the others (foreign posters forgiven) really need first to learn how to express themselves using proper language/spelling skills. If how you write is reflective of your photo skills then brides beware!!! Three thousand dollars for a typical "all day" wedding in many U.S. markets is very acceptable. I'm tired of having to explain why I charge what I do. I am reasonable, fair and as has been said here if a client is not happy with my range of charges capitalism allows you to seek another photographer.

Where can one get $30/month for a 5 to 15Mbps upstream bandwidth? When you are uploading photos to your website for your clients, it is the upstream bandwidth that's important. Typical consumer high speed internet has super fast download (downstream) and super slow upstream like 256Kbps to 512Kbps at least in the States. In some states, it's like dial up modem speeds. Some countries do charge much less for like a 5Mbps or 10Mbps upstream than in the States. So my question is, does Puget Sound area charge $30/month for a 5Mbps or 10Mbps upstream bandwidth?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 04:26 UTC
In reply to:

CMurdock: Nikki Wagner is paying WAY MORE for all the services she says she needs in order to conduct her business. As an example, she could host her web site for $8, not $30, and she could pay as little as $30 a month for high-speed internet, not $200. Furthermore, she should not be paying 30% of her income in taxes. The figures she gave in her response were mostly bogus.

There is a difference in price between a 99.9% web service host and a 95% and under service host. Most high speed internet service provides a high speed DOWNLOAD bandwidth and very SLOW upstream bandwidth. When you are in the photography business, you need to UPLOAD to the website. You pay through the nose in getting faster upstream bandwidth. In my area, I have to pay $150 for 100Mbps download and 5Mbps upstream. For 15Mbps (that's when you are uploading those huge files), it's around $300 per month. Let me know where you get $30 for 15Mbps upstream.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 04:16 UTC
In reply to:

OldZorki: One thing I never was able to understand - why, after all the $$$ paid people still do not own originals.
Most of the work done "for hire" presume that after the work is done all IP and such transferred to customer. If my company develops the software for a client, he universally requesting source code, and so on.
If I paid $4000 for a wedding pics and albums, why I should be held hostage by some company -and every time I need a new print, I have to pay them?

It's to protect artistic creation. A lot of the best artists and architects do this including Frank Lloyd Wright. His clients NEVER got a hold of his blue prints. He merely loaned his blue print for the build. And we are talking clients that are paying millions of bucks. Bill Gates did the same with DOS. He merely licensed it to IBM. Look at IBM now -- sold their business to Lenovo while Microsoft still survives. You'll understand it when you run your own business. You will never understand if you are an employee. I take it that you are one of the employees of a software company?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

alvaromorales: I live in the Miami, Florida area and I've been shooting weddings for about 4 years now. I charge half of what the lady in this post is arguing about and I provide the couple with a DVD of the images for an additional price. That being said, I also work full time to sustain myself because it would be great to be able to shoot a wedding every weekend, but that simply is just not so. Most of the time spent AWAY from shooting is processing and actually getting other bookings (marketing and promoting yourself). I believe the hardest part of being a wedding photographer is getting the booking, and then (fingers crossed) hoping that they don't cancel or the plans don't fall through or that they choose somebody else. Then all you have is the deposit.
A good service comes at a premium. I agree, $3,000 is A LOT of money. But so is going to the salon, hiring a plumber or hiring a mechanic. Bottom line: it's a choice to hire the service, don't make it your service to complain about the hiring...

I think $3000 is in a context of a full time professional photographer and relying on that as full gross income to the business. There is a confusion amongst people here calling themselves pro photographers and yet have daytime jobs.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

jagge: sorry i am absolutely on the bride side. Sorry but 3k is a high price. Now off course if you are wanting the most spectacular photographer you have to pay the prize, no doubt about it, free market. BUT if 3k is supposed to be the "normal" rate and you then get this reply that in all honesty is a bit rich.

Sorry the season is "4 months", very well that might be but I dont think its reasonably to assume that you can base your entire income on that and put your prices accordingly. Well its a free world. If anyone will pay 3k for a wedding photograper be my guest. I applaud those who can charge rates like that, honestly. BUT trying to argue that that price is more than fair, and almost getting to the point that it actually is almost a bad deal for the photographer is a bit pathetic.

Sorry I dont find that response very compelling or convincing. She could shoot 3 weedings a month, use a week on each and lay in the sun the rest of the time with a 9k income. Thats quite ok, come on.....

J

One of the industries that seem to weather the recession or any economic hardship is the wedding industry. It's wise not to ignore the fact and most photographers during their transition time will dabble into weddings. $3000 is fair considering that you are buying a piece of memory and art and to cover certain business expenses.

The author of the Craiglist post assumes that photographers are employees that gets a steady paycheque. She is probably an employee of a company. And this is the fallacy between people who are used to get paid twice a week or once a month, because that income is stable as long as you hold that job. A self-employed photographer (which is what Nikki is) does not have the luxury of a monthly guaranteed pay cheque. The only guaranteed monthly expense are her bills.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 03:37 UTC

Digital made photography even cheaper! It had brought upon lots of people from all walks of life into the business. It diluted the pay scale. Ask any real pros out there how much are they getting paid per photo compared to just a few years back? Any Joe and Jane with a EOS or a D3/D700 etc.. can work on contract. Sanctioned professional events are full of them. Sometimes, they paid their own expense to fly out there only to be told, someone else got the job! I saw many of these faces; mostly they tell me oh well it's a holiday. Yeah, but how many holidays can you afford not getting paid enough? It's tough making a living in photography unless you have some business smarts. Unfortunately, there are many talented and non-talented photographers out there who undercharge and eventually run themselves out of business. It happens all the time in many decades I've been in the photo business. So this is not something new. Craiglist is.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 03:26 UTC as 60th comment
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8