I belong to a local moms FB group and, last week, one of the members asked for recommendations for a family photographer. Her request was for someone who was "good, but not so expensive." I pay attention when local photographers are discussed as it's a market I'm very much interested in. I tend to casually mention here and there how I might, at some point in the future, jump into the world of professional photography. I know there would be a time commitment and with life as it currently stands, I'm not sure I want to take that on. Who knows how I'll feel in six months or even a year from now. Put aside the time commitment and there's my belief that the current market is oversaturated.
Within three hours of the above request, twelve photographers had been recommended or had listed their businesses. Five additional photographers were added by the end of the day. For reference, there are approximately 1,500 members in that local FB group.
Because I was sick and had time, I went through and checked out the first twelve photographers. I was not only interested in their finished product but also in their fees and how their pricing was structured. It's worth noting how turned off I became with vague language or missing information. Some listed a session fee but did not clearly state what was included with that fee. Others had conflicting information. For example, one page stated that 30 images are included with your session fee, but another page on the same website listed 50 images for the same session fee. Which one is it? It was actually an interesting activity to research a slew of photographers at the same time from the viewpoint of a client.
Below is a snapshot of the first twelve photographers who were listed under the request. However, you'll only see eleven because one was simply a photographer's name without any links and I looked but could not find any business information for that particular photographer. It was later updated with a link but I was too lazy to add the information below. Even though seventeen photographers were recommended, I know of others in the area who were not, some possibly due to higher fees. I tried to compare family sessions instead of mini sessions but I could only find information on mini sessions for several of the photographers.
So if you're looking for a not so expensive family photographer in the Boston area, here's what you would find:
1. $80, 45 minute session, website isn't clear on what $80 covers, does state that "additional" images are available for purchase at $5 per image
2. $100, 15 minute mini session, includes 5 digital files, info from FB, no further info on website
3. $110, 25 minute session, also listed $55 mini session with 10 digital images (info from FB, no website)
4. $150, 1 to 1.5 hour session, includes all digital images
5. $200, 30 to 45 minute session, includes 10 digital images
6. $200, does not provide additional information other than this is the fee for a family session
7. $250, 1 hour session, includes 5 digital images
8. $275, 1 hour session, includes 20 images with print release
9. $300, 1 hour session, no further information provided
10. $300, 1 hour session, includes digital images of the "best" photos
11. $499, 1 hour session, includes at least 30 digital images
I want to talk about the whole "you get what you pay for" theory. If I were to choose one of the above, I would go with the fourth photographer. And not because of the cost. She is undervaluing herself. I know this because I've seen a hundred images she provided to a client and I could tell that she understood light, she knew how to use her camera and she's really good at posing people. She's younger and somewhat new to the market so maybe she's valued her services based on that. Maybe she's doing it for market reasons. I don't know, but she is definitely undervalued.
Photographers post the best of their best client images on social media, FB, IG, websites, etc. For this reason, I wouldn't necessarily decide upon a photographer based on those images alone. It may be hard to do but viewing the photos provided to a client is probably the best way to see what to expect from a photographer. I wouldn't ask a photographer for this! This is where recommendations from friends and acquaintances become extremely helpful. Like in my viewing the photos from Photographer #4.
Sometimes you do get what you pay for. There's a local photographer, who is on the inexpensive side, and I've seen what she has shared on social media. Eh, it's okay. To me, she's someone with a DSLR who is not shooting in manual and doesn't understand light. But her fees are low so for a client who only has a camera on her phone, these photos are a step up. An acquaintance of mine shared the photos she received after a mini session with this photographer and I was a bit surprised. In my opinion (and I realize that this is my opinion), the photos were not very good. (People squinting in full sun.) But this photographer is still cranking out sessions and receiving recommendations. Apparently, she's found a place in the market.
As for me, I haven't decided where I want to fall in this oversaturated market so you can find me photographing my own kids while taking requests from family and friends.
7 comments:
If you were anywhere near Toronto, I'd ask you to take shots of me and my friends (and pay you of course, haha). I love your photos and you understand light and how to catch someone's good side. I've had a lot of photos taken of me in the past and some people get it; some definitely don't. I have a shot of my family and me that makes me look like an 18th century TB patient. I am washed out and sharpened and out of focus in so many different places. And I know my cousin paid a lot for that photographer to take those pics of our family that day. She used a closed room with blinds pulled down and only the overhead light to get the shot. I was appalled, and I'm not a photographer!
Liz - that's terrible! Overhead light only is not good!!
Love.
Just to add to your research, we are up in Boston and have done a 'mini-session' with a well-established area photographer. The mini session is $95 (no images included). You can purchase images individually, or buy all of the digital files afterwards for $350 after the session (comes with 20 or more images). Alternately, you can pre-purchase all of them without seeing the images for $300, and you also get a $100 print credit. Repeat customers get $25 off their mini-session fee. We have done it two years now and have been very pleased. We get about 25 images and we love all of them (with great light). If you are thinking about things that make clients happy, many photographers have you look at the images in their studio / office afterwards (part of the up-sell) and this is just not feasible for us with our busy schedules. Being able to do everything online afterwards is a huge advantage to us. Lastly (for the longest comment ever), I love the most recent pictures you just posted of your daughters. Having followed you for a while, I can't believe how grown up they look!
I honestly never shoot in manual and I don't think that necessarily means someone doesn't know how to shoot photos professionally. I know how light works. I am a really good photographer. I shoot aperture priority because my style is wide open and as the setting implies, I always prioritize aperture. I think there are many examples of photographers who shoot this way because they don't know what they're doing and use it as a crutch, but I'm sure there are many professionals like myself who intentionally shoot the way that I do, stylistically speaking. It depends on what you're shooting, what you value, etc.
I know you consider shooting in manual to be very important in terms of whether a photographer is a qualified professional or not, given the other times I've seen you mention it. But I truly do not think it's the end all be all of whether someone is a professional or offers professional images.
On a related note, I often see people say online that "natural light photographers" are actually just amateurs who are using their lack of ability to shoot with strobes as a cop-out. I can see where they're coming from -- marketing yourself as a "natural light photographer" because you CAN'T shoot with a flash is one thing, but I also see why not every photographer feels inspired to shoot with expensive, bulky external lighting equipment. I know how to use an external flash, but I don't have any desire to learn a huge lighting rig, for instance. I don't shoot those type of photos. In certain cases, it's preference. Wedding photographers, though, who say they are only "natural light" may not make it far in the industry because using external lighting is part of the arsenal you must have to get the shots.
Just my two cents ... :)
Personally, for a shoot like what you discussed in this post I would charge $250, I'd probably do a 30-60 minute session and I'd have to think about how many images I'd guarantee. I don't typically guarantee a specific number of finished images because it creates this weird expectation. If anything, I'd say you're guaranteed 10 or 15 finished images and then I'd deliver more, that way creating the feeling that I've given the client more for their money, while still covering myself if the shoot only yields 10 or 15 excellent images.
Amber - The difference is that you know how to shoot in manual. You know what you're doing. (I'm pretty sure she's shooting in auto.) I do place value in knowing how to shoot in manual and understanding how ISO, aperture and SS work together. I'm not bothered by AP mode but the auto shooters who label themselves as pros. Although - there seem to be plenty who've found their way into the market. I personally don't shoot AP because it doesn't work for what I want.
I've also heard that comment about "natural light photographers" - they are only natural light because they don't know how to use a flash. In some cases, it's true. In others, that's the style they want.
I totally agree and thanks for clarifying! :)
Post a Comment