Reading mode: Light Dark

photo restoration services.

Go to last post
Well I opened a can of worms there didn't I? Someone pointed out in an earlier post that it was restoration I was talking about and not photography, although I guess the arguments put forward could be for any proffession; which boils down to competitiveness. If someone can do an equally good job for less then why not? If I wanted some restoration work carried out I'd shop round; see some examples of work and then decide. All the pros were once amateurs, theres plenty of new talent around and people have to start somewhere. But thanks for the advice given and all you pros out there I guess it's up to you to stay one step ahead of the rest of us!!

The advice from Steve sounds like a good one. We have a couple of small camera shops in town, could give them a try.

Richard
steve john said:
richard said:
Has anybody here tried to make any money out of photo restoration?
The only reason I ask is that I may set up my own web site offering
retouching of old/new photographs. It would be on a hobby basis and
only if I make money to feed my habit (photography I mean), then I
will be more than happy. I've seen there are a few web sites
offering this service and charge, what I think, fairly high rates.
Is there a lively market for this kind of service or am I wasting
my time. Anybody who has done it, any pointers or advice for me?

Thanks

Richard
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Steve offers some excellent advice. I also started at a local camera shop, and now work full time for a studio. Another tip: don't spend too much on a website with the hopes of getting business. It can be a great way to showcase your talents (portfolio), but it's not really a good money maker. As Steve mentioned, not too many people want to send a photo through the mail.

Regarding competition: Although I make my living doing restorations, I will be teaching a class on the subject at a local university in the Spring. I've been asked if I thought I would be creating competition for myself by doing this. My thoughts on this are that these individuals have probably been experimenting on their own, and would be satisfied with their own work, before they paid someone else to do it. In other words, I wouldn't get their business anyway. Some students may also find out how difficult this work can be, and come away with a better understanding of why this is priced as it is. If some do excel, good for them, and me. Competition is heathly, and keeps you on your toes. With competition for comparison, your potential clients will be able to see why your prices are warranted.

Vikki Hansen
http://www.lifetimephoto.com
 
richard said:
Well I opened a can of worms there didn't I?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think I'm the one that opened the can. I wrote:

"If you decide to pursue it, please respect those who feed their family, not just buy more toys with photo restoration by not undercutting them with unrealistically low prices. You'll be cheating yourself and them."

I'd like to respond to some of the comments. Notice that it was just a request on my part. Maybe the key word is "unrealistically". Many of the weekend photographers I run into have no idea how much it is really costing them. If they approached it like a business, some would find they could make more money baby sitting. All I'm asking is that if you pursue the work, you play by the rules and that you do enough homework to really understand your costs and that you charge appropriately.

Yes, I understand the free enterprise system and the concept of competition. I found it ironic that the person who took me to task about pro charges thought it should be illegal to overcharge ($100 for an 8x10). Following that logic, should it also be illegal to undercharge?

All of you amateurs, charge whatever you like and let the market decide, just do everyone a favor and understand the business side enough to charge a fair amount for your services.

I guess I have a protective attitude towards the photos that need restoring. I just love old photographs and I've been fortunate enough to inherit numerous family photos, many dating back more than 100 years. I hope that anyone that does restoration work will use materials and processes that will assure that their work will be long lasting.

Richard, I appreciate the fact that you are seeking information so that you can make an informed decision. Others who've responded have given you a lot of good advice.

Doug
 
Doug,

Yes, this is MY SITUATION. I am the "amateur" that makes a little money on the side (this is really more of a hobby). I am not a "pro" (I obviously do not make a living at it), but I do know some of my work can hold it's own with work I've seen from some "pros" and I do it A WHOLE LOT CHEAPER! There are "pros" out there that are simply GOOD and I can not compete with, but if you believe that just because a photographer is listed in the Yellow Pages and calls himself a "professional photographer" makes him better than any amateur could possibly be, then we need to talk about a certain bridge I have for sale... ;-}

Bart
http://www.thedigitalshutter.com
Doug Mac said:
Bart Moore said:
Maybe I left out a key point...

The photographer WAS PAID A VERY HIGH PRICE FOR THE WORK! This was
simply a 2nd copy of a print we already paid for, amoung MANY
others. $100 for a 2nd copy of an 8x10 is wrong any way you slice
it.
Click to expand...
Bart,
In an earlier post you stated: "Besides, the clients most
"amateurs" attract are not the ones that have more money than
brains and pay an absurd amount for wedding shoot and end up with
'not-much-better-quality' than a well talented "amateur.""
Do you feel this is your situation?

Doug
Doug Mac65597 said:
Bart
http://www.thedigitalshutter.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I too am an amateur..

My real question lies in..

"What determines the change over from amateur to professional?" How much you've earned? I also would venture to say that many of the Amateurs know just as much as a lot of the professionals.. so...

the question comes to mind, is it the lack of self confidence of the Amateur to define themselve as a Professional that deferencients the two?

--
Cathy
http://www.jagrdesigns.com
 
richard said:
Has anybody here tried to make any money out of photo restoration?
The only reason I ask is that I may set up my own web site offering
retouching of old/new photographs. It would be on a hobby basis and
only if I make money to feed my habit (photography I mean), then I
will be more than happy. I've seen there are a few web sites
offering this service and charge, what I think, fairly high rates.
Is there a lively market for this kind of service or am I wasting
my time. Anybody who has done it, any pointers or advice for me?

Thanks

Richard
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago I set up PhotoSalvage.com and thought I might make some money doing restorations. Instead, I received email after email from individuals wanting to know how to do it themselves. It got to be such a pain that I took the site down. It seems that anyone with a copy of PhotoShop can become a restoration specialist... do a web search.. there are hundreds of sites devoted to this niche.

My site is still up at: http://www.robonet.com/photosalvage but I only give it to people that have heard of what I do. Mostly friends and friends of friends. I post the link here not to get business but for you to examine and compare to what you had in mind. By the way, I made a grand total of $100 while the site was up.. it just wasn't worth it to me.

To answer your question "Can you make any money at this or are you wasting your time?"... well, it probably depends on how you market your services and what you charge.. and of course, how good you are at photo restoration.

It's funny you mention this because in the latest issue of Photo Graphic magazine there is an article called: "Photo Salvage"... written by a couple who have authored a book on photo restoration.. or salvage.. I wrote them last night telling them that instead of putting up a website I should have written a book on the subject.

You can always try it and if it doesn't work you will not have lost that much in the way of money.

Regards,

Jim
 
I don't have a public web site. I'm also Doug Mac

Doug
 
cjag said:
I too am an amateur..

My real question lies in..
"What determines the change over from amateur to professional?" How
much you've earned? I also would venture to say that many of the
Amateurs know just as much as a lot of the professionals.. so...
the question comes to mind, is it the lack of self confidence of
the Amateur to define themselve as a Professional that
deferencients the two?
Click to expand...
It may be that this is true. But the lack of confidence of an amateur does not positively correlate with a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Frequently, it's the ones who "know it all" that know the least.

Charles Darwin(1871) noted: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" and Thomas Jefferson said: "he who knows best best knows how little he knows."
 
Cathy,

Your pictures look as professional as any "professional" pictures I've seen, maybe even more so. Nice work, "amateur"! ; }

Bart
http://www.thedigitalshutter.com
cjag said:
I too am an amateur..

My real question lies in..
"What determines the change over from amateur to professional?" How
much you've earned? I also would venture to say that many of the
Amateurs know just as much as a lot of the professionals.. so...

the question comes to mind, is it the lack of self confidence of
the Amateur to define themselve as a Professional that
deferencients the two?

--
Cathy
http://www.jagrdesigns.com
Click to expand...
 
cjag said:
I too am an amateur..

My real question lies in..
"What determines the change over from amateur to professional?" How
much you've earned? I also would venture to say that many of the
Amateurs know just as much as a lot of the professionals.. so...
Click to expand...
Great question, Cathy! I used to do a lot of judging of amateur photography contests. Some had some nice monetary prizes, as well as bragging rights. The contests started to get a lot of entries from wannabe pros. They actively solicited business, even had business cards. They argued that they were "amateur", since they had a day job and were just weekenders. One sponsor changed the entry rules to state that anyone who made the majority of their livelyhood from photography was ineligable. Another stated anyone who solicited paid work was a professional, therefore ineligable.

Either way, it kind of defeated the purpose of the competitions to me. I thought they should be for folks who did photography for the joy of it. It also put the judges in a bind. For instance, someone may have entered a charming candid of their daughter - wonderful expression, a real "Kodak" moment - but maybe not perfect technically. Also entered would be a "studio" type portrait from one of the wannabees. Technically superior to the candid, but still not near "pro" quality. Also, much more boring. Which gets judged higher? I you answered the candid, that was my vote.

Don't get me wrong. I think the majority of "professionals" out there don't deserve the distinction, and I know many talented amateurs who are better than most pros will ever be.

I guess I'll go with the definition of a pro I used to share with my photo students. On any given day, an amateur can take a wonderful photograph and a professional can take one that's not up to snuff (I know from experience). What makes a pro is the ability to day in, day out, produce professional quality work, whether they like the subject or feel like doing photography that day. What makes a pro is also being a good businessperson, to be able to offer services at fair prices that will (or could) provide a livelihood. Being a pro is being ethical, not illegally copying someone elses work just because you think they charged you too much (why would you not know their rate before hiring them?). Being a pro is honoring your profession and your fellow photographers.

To me, being able to charge for your work does not automatically make you a superior photographer. It's an aberration of our culture that something only has worth if it can be sold in the marketplace. I was a professional photographer for 25 years and made a comfortable living at it. I've been an amateur, both before and after I was a pro. I'm just as proud of my amateur standing as I was of my professional standing.
cjag said:
the question comes to mind, is it the lack of self confidence of
the Amateur to define themselve as a Professional that
deferencients the two?
Click to expand...
differentiates?

I don't think so. I've met many an amateur who are just as big an arrogant, cocky a$$hole as some professionals, and that's saying something.

Doug
 
Marlene DeGrood said:
This is my total lively hood and it's tragic when some amateur
wants to make a few extra bucks off of his/her hobby and take away
the food off of my table. My expenses are huge and I pay high
taxes on my profit. How many amateurs even report their "extra"
income to the IRS?

So thanks again for what you have written, I'm glad that there's
someone out there who realizes the damages that amateurs can have
on the professional's livelyhood
Click to expand...
Gosh.. I didn't realize anyone was born a pro. I guess those of us who are amateurs should just give up any thoughts of developing our skills to the point where we could become pros. At any point in your career were you ever considered an amateur? Did any pros tell you you had no right to get into the business?

I might as well get rid of my equipment and software. I can't live with the thought that I might have taken the food off of someone's table.

Seriously, pros keep their business by being the best at what they do not by discouraging others from the marketplace.

Jim
 
This is the way things work.

If I may respectfully point out:

In the Middle Ages, books were made by monks who copied them by hand--taking them months or years to create a copy.

The invention of the printing press changed that--so monks were out of that job. This created another class of people to work on these printing presses.

At present, almost any office PC with a laser printer and good quality paper can produce good quality printouts--thus most of these class of print jobs were lost to the traditional printers.

*****

I think this applies to photography as well.

In the past, with manual cameras, only Pros (or the people who had money and time to burn) would know the appropriate settings, poses and lighting for a given situation.

With automatic cameras which can produce good focus and exposures at least 90% of the time, the amateur's pics are getting better and better.

Introduction of the digital cameras--where feedback is almost instantaneous--has helped the amateurs more. If the amateur really wants to produce good shots, he just have to re-take the pic again and again until it 'feels right.'

*****

One advantage of the pro though is that he usually has more Creativity and knows his Composition and Lighting...which an amateur wouldn't have.

Usually.

With the internet, anybody with a net access can browse through a lot of pics and learn from them...even confer with experts from around the world (like in this forum) and get valuable insights into photography or retouching.

*****

In the natural world, it's called Evolution.

In the Future, will Camera Makers produce an Intelligent Camera which will give a warning if the Composition or Lighting isn't right? This isn't an impossibility--the Nikon F80 has gridlines to help the user with his Composition.

Fine Art pics can possibly be a 'feature' of the camera--at present, some cameras can already produce B & W or sepia images straight from the box... Maybe someone can introduce a 'Watercolor' feature to the next generation of amateur digital cameras...

*****

Will this trend make professional photographers extinct?

I doubt it.

Most people are too lazy to take on the responsibility of making sure the pics turn out 'perfect'--a responsibility which a Pro takes on every day.

Just my 2 cents.

Kenneth
Manila, Philipines
 
Doug,

Enjoyed the pep talk...

"Being a pro is being ethical, not illegally copying someone elses work just because you think they charged you too much (why would you not know their rate before hiring them?). Being a pro is honoring your profession and your fellow photographers."

...but I would do nothing different if I had it to do over again, other than inquire about how much "SECOND COPIES" cost. Since my wife took care of the arrangements, I had no idea until after the fact - I know, no excuse.

You are correct in that not paying $100 for a second 8x10 print and copying it is not legal and unethcial. I may be wrong, but I'd be really surprised if I sat down at your computer and didn't find a single program or MP3 that was not there illegally. Is this not the same thing?

As far as honoring my "fellow photographers"...please! I have as much "honor" for a stranger holding a camera in their hand as I do for someone else driving a Ford or riding a Harley. We're not talking about a "fellow soldier" or "fellow policeman" that you rely on with your life, but simply "another guy with a camera". I think your original definition of a "pro" being someone that makes it their livelihood is much more accurate. Let's not turn the process of taking a picture into an act of patriotism.

Bart
Doug MacMillan said:
cjag said:
I too am an amateur..

My real question lies in..
"What determines the change over from amateur to professional?" How
much you've earned? I also would venture to say that many of the
Amateurs know just as much as a lot of the professionals.. so...
Click to expand...
Great question, Cathy! I used to do a lot of judging of amateur
photography contests. Some had some nice monetary prizes, as well
as bragging rights. The contests started to get a lot of entries
from wannabe pros. They actively solicited business, even had
business cards. They argued that they were "amateur", since they
had a day job and were just weekenders. One sponsor changed the
entry rules to state that anyone who made the majority of their
livelyhood from photography was ineligable. Another stated anyone
who solicited paid work was a professional, therefore ineligable.

Either way, it kind of defeated the purpose of the competitions to
me. I thought they should be for folks who did photography for the
joy of it. It also put the judges in a bind. For instance, someone
may have entered a charming candid of their daughter - wonderful
expression, a real "Kodak" moment - but maybe not perfect
technically. Also entered would be a "studio" type portrait from
one of the wannabees. Technically superior to the candid, but
still not near "pro" quality. Also, much more boring. Which gets
judged higher? I you answered the candid, that was my vote.

Don't get me wrong. I think the majority of "professionals" out
there don't deserve the distinction, and I know many talented
amateurs who are better than most pros will ever be.

I guess I'll go with the definition of a pro I used to share with
my photo students. On any given day, an amateur can take a
wonderful photograph and a professional can take one that's not up
to snuff (I know from experience). What makes a pro is the ability
to day in, day out, produce professional quality work, whether they
like the subject or feel like doing photography that day. What
makes a pro is also being a good businessperson, to be able to
offer services at fair prices that will (or could) provide a
livelihood. Being a pro is being ethical, not illegally copying
someone elses work just because you think they charged you too much
(why would you not know their rate before hiring them?). Being a
pro is honoring your profession and your fellow photographers.

To me, being able to charge for your work does not automatically
make you a superior photographer. It's an aberration of our
culture that something only has worth if it can be sold in the
marketplace. I was a professional photographer for 25 years and
made a comfortable living at it. I've been an amateur, both before
and after I was a pro. I'm just as proud of my amateur standing as
I was of my professional standing.
Doug MacMillan said:
the question comes to mind, is it the lack of self confidence of
the Amateur to define themselve as a Professional that
deferencients the two?
Click to expand...
differentiates?
I don't think so. I've met many an amateur who are just as big an
arrogant, cocky a$$hole as some professionals, and that's saying
something.

Doug
Click to expand...
 
Marina,

Well, I didn't want to say it, but that's the direction I was wondering it may go. You're right..."ironic". ; )

Bart
Marina B. said:
Bart Moore said:
Where is the web site you are referring to in the message posted to
Doug? I could not find it in his message nor in his profile.

Thanks,
Bart
http://www.thedigitalshutter.com
Marlene DeGrood said:
Doug
I went to your website.......nice work......actually......excellent
work!!
Marlene
http://www.thedigitalspectrum.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Marina B. said:
Isn't it ironic that Marlene probably mistook your page Bart as
Doug's? And you're just the "cheap guy", the "amateur".
Click to expand...
Ok.......I simply deleted the post and the wrong name was still up there......can't accept the compliment for whoever it was for? And.......just what is your problem Marina? You don't have a clue and probably never will. I'm an "amateur" in digital photography......mostly Photoshop, even though I've been studying if for 9 years.......I'm still consider myself an amateur. Professsional film photographer......yes......I've been making a very good income off of my education, studies, business sense and experience in photography since 1972. I've been through it all.........more than you can possibly imagine. I know more than you will ever know. It's that simple. Futher more.......you're a total idiot.

Marlene
http://www.thedigitalspectrum.com
 
Jim Radcliffe said:
Member said:
This is my total lively hood and it's tragic when some amateur
wants to make a few extra bucks off of his/her hobby and take away
the food off of my table. My expenses are huge and I pay high
taxes on my profit. How many amateurs even report their "extra"
income to the IRS?

So thanks again for what you have written, I'm glad that there's
someone out there who realizes the damages that amateurs can have
on the professional's livelyhood
Click to expand...
Gosh.. I didn't realize anyone was born a pro. I guess those of us
who are amateurs should just give up any thoughts of developing our
skills to the point where we could become pros. At any point in
your career were you ever considered an amateur? Did any pros tell
you you had no right to get into the business?

I might as well get rid of my equipment and software. I can't live
with the thought that I might have taken the food off of someone's
table.

Seriously, pros keep their business by being the best at what they
do not by discouraging others from the marketplace.

Jim
Click to expand...
Jim,

I wasn't "born a pro" I got to be pro by working through college to obtain my B.A. in photography at Brooks Institute. After I graduated I worked extremely hard to establish myself as an expert in my field, just as anyone would in any field that they felt positive enough and confindent enough to pursue as a career since they were 12 years old. This entire thread has been belittling to the hard work that any professional has put into their field to establish themselves as a professional. I have nothing against amateur photograhers, if it wasn't for them the digital camera may not even exist. My only complaint is with those "amateurs" who for the fun of it, or ego of it, or to make a few extra bucks to buy a new "toy".......will undercut the pro......get the job......and most (maybe not all)......mess it up.

The reality is, most clients now realize the difference after getting burned by weekend pros, unfortunatly it cost us all while we waited for the client to realize how many people with digital cameras and photoshop now consider themselves to be apart of the "competition" and now know the difference. Once again......not all amateurs are going to mess up the job, but from experience I can tell you that 90% have.
Marlene
http://www.thedigitalspectrum.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top