|
brad industry posted:Yeah but 20 images is nothing, volume is the name of the game with any agency. When PSC was still active I had about 200 and still only made a handful of sales (totally worth it, I'm still pissed they went under). I will be paying attention to your results in this endeavor. I seem to recall from a while back that Shutterstock is known for arbitrary rejection.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 21:31 |
|
I guess with the volume they get they try to reject as many as possible.
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 08:42 |
|
|
Probably true, I specifically chose images I knew were technically perfect and prepped for stock submission (ie. they were previous stock images that had made it through the strict technical reviews at either Masterfile or PSC).
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 21:37 |
|
|
I feel like you could still put those kind of shot's into masterfile, or getty or whatever, and make more money frmo them. I've worked at quite a few magazines, either choosing images for marketing myself, or as a retoucher for editorial, and being told what images to choose. They don't really care what it's from, as stuff from Istock is pretty high quality most of the time, they're really critical. It's more 'which place has the shot I need?' The bigger places aren't really going to fuss over 20 bucks versus 300 bucks, and I'm not convinced you'd make more from putting those photo's on Istock instead of your usually sites. Especially cause Istock offers better incentives for royalties if you're an 'Istock Exclusive whatever', and if you're not, your commission is probably only 20% or so. I forget the scale, its on their site. Just some info from the other side, I suppose.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 22:04 |
|
|
Yeah, obviously I am not going to stop submitting to more traditional agencies. I am purely interested in micro-stock as a place to dump snapshots and things that Getty doesn't want (they have such a large archive they are pretty picky even if the images you send in are good). My friend's argument is that he sends his production-heavy or portfolio-worthy stuff to Getty and then anything he wouldn't want associated with his name/brand he sends to microstock where it sits in obscurity, steadily bringing in a small amount of income he wouldn't otherwise get. That is basically what I was doing with Alamy, but the hits and sales have fallen really far down lately which is why I'm thinking of jumping that sinking ship. It's not like I shoot a lot of stock anyways, I don't really actively pursue it, so I don't have a whole lot invested in this. I am just curious because I have basically always thought microstock=scam, but I've been surprised lately by people who I otherwise thought had good business sense say they were going that route as a part of their strategy. I'm not convinced (and I still think these people who churn out thousands of images a month as part of their main income are retarded, that seems like a race to the bottom to me) but we'll see. brad industry fucked around with this message at Mar 27, 2009 around 23:09 |
| # ? Mar 27, 2009 23:07 |
|
|
Well, I just came upon a myspace for a new music magazine in my region and noticed they were using a band promo of mine as their default picture, and reading their page it looks like the first issue of the magazine is coming out April 1st, most likely with the same photo/cover design as they're default picture. I haven't been contacted about this at all, so I drafted this email regarding the matter; quote:Hey, I just stumbled upon your page and found a photo of mine as the default. Looking at your profile it looks like the first issue is coming out in the next few days, and if any of my photos are being used then you must pay the usage fee for them. I was a journalism major at USC and have been practicing professional photography for a year now, so knowing the business I can't just allow my work to be used freely without compensation. If you are interested in using them then let me know, otherwise I must ask that they be removed if not payed for, from both your website and the magazine. I suspect his response is going to be "well we are a free publication blah blah" but there is a difference in free distribution and non-profit.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 17:57 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Alamy What's the deal with Alamy anyways? I remember a couple years ago they were known for being below Getty/Corbis, but better than microstocks. I've heard they've been in decline for a while (due to their lower standards), tried running a few searches the other day and the stuff I got back was pretty much crap. How much did they pay compared to the two? Are there any other "happy medium" type agencies that currently don't suck? As for microstocks themselves, I'm in agreement with your strategy; I don't think you're really contributing to a "race to the bottom" if all you're submitting are "meh" images that a real stock agency wouldn't touch anyways.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 18:19 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I suspect his response is going to be "well we are a free publication blah blah" but there is a difference in free distribution and non-profit. I think your response was totally appropriate and reasonable. It's lovely they did it without permission, it's one thing to ask if you can use it for something but to just take it is ridiculous. quote:What's the deal with Alamy anyways? Alamy's problem is that it's unedited, which may have worked back before everyone age 5 and up had a DSLR but has turned it into a shithole of crap. I think buyers have just decided that if they are going to have to look through a bunch of garbage images they would rather do it and pay $5 instead of $150 or whatever. I sold a handful of royalty free images (mostly to UK magazines) but these days I barely even get any views or hits.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2009 19:11 |
|
|
Question for you guys. I need to start thinking about showing some of my photography for some new jobs, but I have no idea what exactly to show. How would I go about limiting my work to a reasonable number? What number would that be? I want to have a competitive portfolio so I can try and work with and assist other photographers.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 09:41 |
|
|
There is no real set definition for "reasonable". Well, let me rephrase- don't carry around an entire exhibit's worth of prints but 10-15 high quality prints are usually a solid number to bring but I've known people who brought in as little as 5. In terms of what to show, you really need to be able to take a step back from your work and be as objective as possible. Often times as photographers, we get attached to the sentimental/emotional side of the shoot and so we have the memories of what a fantastic time we had setting up the shoot but the image is just blah. If you want help, pick what you think deserves to be in there and ask family/friends/hell, even strangers maybe for some feedback and see what they are responding to visually. If you pull an image out and you hear crickets then that's probably not an image you want in your portfolio.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 12:09 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:Question for you guys. I need to start thinking about showing some of my photography for some new jobs, but I have no idea what exactly to show. How would I go about limiting my work to a reasonable number? What number would that be? I want to have a competitive portfolio so I can try and work with and assist other photographers. The thing is that for assisting, more important than a portfolio is knowing how to use the equipment that a given photographer is using, what to look for when they need something, etc. An assistant is essentially manual labor + knowledge, after all.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 14:05 |
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't really worry about a portfolio for assistant work. Just name drop who you've worked with in the past, list equipment that you are familiar with and ask those who you have worked for to spread your name around. For those of you who are looking to boost stock sales, you need to shoot what sells well. It's hard to balance shooting what your art director/editor says is selling well without compromising your style and what you like to shoot but you're going to sell a LOT more if you cater more to their style than your own. If you have the opportunity to get directly in touch with a member of the sales staff then they can really hook you up with shots and concepts that they need which will, in most cases, sell almost immediately.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 14:35 |
|
|
I've never shown a portfolio to get assisting jobs, and when I hire assistants I don't care what their work looks like.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 17:40 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I've never shown a portfolio to get assisting jobs, and when I hire assistants I don't care what their work looks like. Some of the people I've assisted for have wanted to see a portfolio. These people expected a second shooter, though.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 20:49 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I've never shown a portfolio to get assisting jobs, and when I hire assistants I don't care what their work looks like. for my first assisting gig fresh out of school I took along my portfolio and the photog looked at me like I was stupid. He did look at it though, to humor me I guess. So yeah, unless you're shooting there's no need.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 21:48 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:The thing is that for assisting, more important than a portfolio is knowing how to use the equipment that a given photographer is using, what to look for when they need something, etc. An assistant is essentially manual labor + knowledge, after all. Well I am also partially interested because I want to setup a small portfolio site with a bunch of hand-chosen images, so I'm going to have to narrow my poo poo down - but which ones I am not 100% sure. Every time I post something new I get bored of my old work and I feel I don't really have a distinct style like portrait photography or landscapes. I think I do a whole range of different poo poo that is hard to define. I guess I will just try and pick my best. Better to stick to a single style? Show varied? germskr posted:good advice Thanks, this helps.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 21:58 |
|
|
Depending on what field of work you're going in to- suppose you're a wedding photographer, would you post pictures of products on your wedding website? Probably not. I know a few people who manage different websites- one for all their day job stuff and then another website where they have miscellaneous to personal works. As has been mentioned, if you're looking for assisting this generally doesn't matter to you but if you want to get a job in that specific field, in my personal opinion it's good to keep your portfolio relevant to the client. Granted, I know some art directors and clients in the past who opened up a portfolio, fingered through it and then said "tell me what this is about." Better yet, some art directors and clients actually prefer to see your personal work (think editorial advertising) where I know a guy who got paid to make pictures the way he wanted to and was hired for the way he saw things through his lens in his personal work. I'm always on the fence in terms of specializing my portfolio or being a jack of all trades so hopefully other people can shed some light as to what they think about that. edit: after rereading that it seems like I just typed a poo poo load to come to this conclusion- until you start making money in a specific field that you enjoy/successful at and while you're young, probably just be diverse in portfolio(?) edit 2: or if you have extra $$ just buy a bunch of domain names that each host their own content so for me it'd be architecture, advertising/product, maybe landscape, and then a personal works page. as you meet new people, you'd just refer them to whichever webpage best fits their photographer needs. germskr fucked around with this message at Mar 30, 2009 around 22:15 |
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 22:07 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:Well I am also partially interested because I want to setup a small portfolio site with a bunch of hand-chosen images, so I'm going to have to narrow my poo poo down - but which ones I am not 100% sure. Every time I post something new I get bored of my old work and I feel I don't really have a distinct style like portrait photography or landscapes. I think I do a whole range of different poo poo that is hard to define. I guess I will just try and pick my best. This is my opinion from an editorial/commercial perspective... You need to pick one thing and stick with it. There are a million photographers out there and having diverse subject matter in your portfolio means that no one will remember you, or they will think that you are passable at some things but not an expert in anything (and who wants to hire that guy when there are plenty of specialized experts?). If an art buyer has an assignment for food, the guy who has food, portraits, and products in their book is not even going to register on their radar when there are 50 guys who do nothing but food and do it really well. There is no value in being a jack of all trades unless you are in a tiny market or something (and even then, I think you should have a "main" portfolio that you show the world and separate books to show local or small clients who need something different - ie. I have a food portfolio and a "poo poo on white seamless" one but I would never, ever put that on my main site because it would water down my brand and keep me from getting the kinds of assignments I really want to do). Style wise I think it's the same thing. If you are all over the place they are going to think, "If I give this guy the job, I have no idea what they are going to turn in at the end, it could look like X, Y, or Z and what I need is someone who can pull of X every time". Photo editors and art buyers have to justify their decisions to their bosses and if you turn in something that's not what they expected it reflects poorly on them. The best strategy is to specialize and keep separate portfolios for when someone local says, "Great work but I need _____, can you do that?" and then you whip it out and show them that stuff. I look at a lot of portfolios every day and the difference between good ones and bad ones is how focused they are. People who are all over the place stick out like a sore thumb, it makes you look like a student or someone who has no idea what they're doing (even if there is nothing awful about the actual images). The upside to specializing and showing the kind of work you really enjoy doing is that you will get hired to do that kind of work. When I get an assignment I usually am told, "Go make it look like the stuff on your website" which is awesome.. because my website is all stuff I really want to do as opposed to products or white seamless portraits or something. I think showing personal work is OK as long as it doesn't detract from your main portfolio. I have heard a lot of art buyers say they like looking at personal work because it shows how the photographer shoots and sees when they're not doing a job.
|
| # ? Mar 30, 2009 22:36 |
|
|
Heads up: today is the last day for a pretty sweet Modern Postcard deal ($95 for 500 4/4 cards). https://www.modernpostcard.com/prom...lob_march_promo
|
| # ? Mar 31, 2009 20:58 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I look at a lot of portfolios every day and the difference between good ones and bad ones is how focused they are... Where do you go to look at portfolios? I've always wanted to figure out a way to compare myself with same-aged peers, or with my geographic region, but never could google-fu my way into that.
|
| # ? Apr 2, 2009 18:34 |
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Where do you go to look at portfolios? I've always wanted to figure out a way to compare myself with same-aged peers, or with my geographic region, but never could google-fu my way into that. I read a lot of professional/art related photo blogs and always click through to see portfolios (of the people in the articles and the commenters). Also every month I make a trip to Barnes & Noble and look at as many magazines as possible to see who's shooting what.. if I don't recognize someone's name and I like what they did I write it down and Google them when I get home. Blackbook/Workbook/Wonderful Machine are good too, especially if you want to narrow it down by region. Might be worth trying your local APA & ASMP chapter websites too. I have a lot of friends in the photo industry and we all forward each other stuff. I'll just dump some links here: http://www.aphotoeditor.com http://www.pdnphotoaday.com http://artproducer.blogspot.com/ http://rachelhulin.com/blog/ http://flakphoto.com http://wecanshoottoo.blogspot.com/ http://www.20x200.com/blog/ http://www.heathermorton.ca/blog http://www.pdnpulse.com/ http://theexposureproject.blogspot.com http://www.thisisaphotoblog.com http://timothyarchibald.blogspot.com/ http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/ http://www.whatsthejackanory.com/ Question for wedding guys: what do you charge / how do you calculate your fees for engagement photos? Got a request from a friend of a friend and I'm not even sure what would be in the ballpark of reasonable.
|
| # ? Apr 2, 2009 19:37 |
|
|
250 for the shoot 1 print, usually thats all they need for the newspaper announcements and such. My rates are pretty cheap, but since its for a friend that might sound right to you.
|
| # ? Apr 2, 2009 19:48 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Question for wedding guys: what do you charge / how do you calculate your fees for engagement photos? Got a request from a friend of a friend and I'm not even sure what would be in the ballpark of reasonable. I do some on-location portrait photography, mostly families, but I've done a handful of engagement sets. Most of my shoots take about an hour at some scenic location nearby. For families of up to 5 people, I have a $100 session fee for one location and we'd usually spend about an hour there. Print packages start about $100 for a smattering of portrait sheets and go up from there. I let them choose their own sizes for their portrait sheets. One 8x10 is a sheet, so are two 5x7s, 8 wallets, and so on. My base family package has 8 sheets for $100. Engagement photos I price a little differently than families. People buying engagement photos really don't want or need a bunch of prints, in most cases, so I instead focus on selling them announcement cards and a handful of prints. I still have the session fee ($100) and instead do 4 sheets + 20 cards for $100 as a base package. If I liked the couple for the engagement shoot (and I've only run into one couple I didn't like), I always try to get a commitment from them to shoot the wedding, too. Obviously, I have larger packages of prints available. The more sheets they buy, the more they get for their money. Most of my customers end up spending about $250-$300 total (session fee included), and get between 12 and 20 sheets. Families will sometimes get a superlarge print (16x20) for an additional fee.
|
| # ? Apr 5, 2009 04:37 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I read a lot of professional/art related photo blogs and always click through to see portfolios (of the people in the articles and the commenters). Also every month I make a trip to Barnes & Noble and look at as many magazines as possible to see who's shooting what.. if I don't recognize someone's name and I like what they did I write it down and Google them when I get home. Thanks for the tips and the list of blogs. I've been struggling a lot trying to find more dedicated resources outside the occasional flickr photostream.
|
| # ? Apr 5, 2009 07:37 |
|
|
Just chiming in to say that despite my initial impression over Model Mayhem and whether or not it would ever translate into paid work, I got hired through it for a job where I was shooting promo material for events for a Big-10 school's Student Board. Monetary Compensation was decent but the real kicker is my website is going to be plastered on the thousands of flyers they put up over campus, hand out, mail out, etc. Their promotional campaign doesn't start until this coming September though, so I will be anxiously waiting to see if I get some calls from it.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2009 13:46 |
|
|
So I've been getting a little bit of assistant work lately, and I've been coming into contact with a certain amount of demand for specialized assistants, I guess. Photographers will ask me if I can be a digital tech or a lighting tech, but since I don't really know what those entail, I really can't say anything other than "no." What are the duties of a digital tech and lighting tech? Also, on various places to be listed as an assistant, there's a graded scale (1-4, 1-5 or so) on knowledge/skill level. For camera systems like 35mm, 4x5, 8x10, I understand how that fits, but what about when they ask about strobes, tungsten, HMI and capture? Is it about familiarity with a broad range of equipment (i.e. a bunch of different brands and how they operate), set-up/break-down w/ modifiers, ability to repair, etc. etc. It seems really vague, so I'm not sure how I should grade myself appropriately.
|
| # ? Apr 22, 2009 22:46 |
|
|
Subjunctivitis posted:What are the duties of a digital tech and lighting tech? To me a "lighting tech" is just a normal assistant since that is usually what you end up doing. As an assistant you should be familiar with a broad range of equipment (ie. I can use pretty much anything). A digital tech is a more specialized position. Usually they are hired in addition to a regular assistant and they run the computer and everything related to that... setting up the workstation, getting the tethered application up and running, monitoring the images as they come in (watching for things like focus or blown highlights), backing things up, moving the data to and from locations and to the studio (or wherever) after the shoot, doing basic processing, managing workflow, knowing how to use/troubleshoot/set up all kinds of digital backs, making corrections, dealing with any digital/software/workflow/etc. issues that might come up, sometimes doing light retouching on set, things like that. I would not represent yourself as a digital tech unless you are actually an expert in all of the various backs, workflow issues, and capture software. I am pretty competent with most of those things and am trying to move more in a digital tech direction (less heavy lifting, better pay!) but I wouldn't describe myself as an "expert". If you are decent with those things then definitely let people know that you are knowledgeable about digital and can help with those issues. Most of the assisting gigs I get now are because I know the traditional stuff and also the digital side. Most jobs don't have the budget for an assistant AND a digital tech, so being able to do both is a huge plus and sets you apart from every other assistant. brad industry fucked around with this message at Apr 26, 2009 around 05:31 |
| # ? Apr 24, 2009 18:02 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I will be paying attention to your results in this endeavor. I seem to recall from a while back that Shutterstock is known for arbitrary rejection. Well here's an update since it's been roughly a month. I took ~50 outtakes and otherwise general garbage shots that Getty had previously rejected and put them on iStock, Fotolia, and Dreamstime (I need to resubmit to Shutterstock but have actually been busy this month and haven't gotten around to it). For the amount of time invested I am not all that impressed. Getting everything uploaded, keyworded, etc. is a huge time sink. I cannot imagine how people who are doing this full time get enough return vs. time involved unless they live in bumblefuck where their rent is nothing and have an army of cheap assistants to do it all for them. The shots that did the best are extremely simple/generic bullshit (80% of the sales below are of a snapshot of a bird's nest on white seamless I took a few years ago and a picture of an empty highway). How many images I have up: istock - 35 (they have the strictest upload limits which is why this is lower) dreamstime - 52 fotolia - 40 Earnings so far: istock - $15.22 dreamstime - $4.04 fotolia - $0.30  Total = a whopping $19.56. Comparing notes with my friend this is somewhat typical for the number of images. It seems like if you had an archive of 1000 images up that would be a substantial amount of money, but it boggles my mind to think of the amount of time that would take to not only shoot, but get uploaded and into their system. Of course, I made one 3 figure RM sale through Getty this past month and I didn't have to do poo poo except FTP the file in. I'm not impressed, but it's hard to draw any conclusions from this since I have been trickling files in to these sites all month and I have a low amount of images up (I'm trying to not devote any 'real time' to this, I submit and keyword while I'm waiting for batches to process or print queues to finish). I'm going to continue with it but I seriously do not want to sound like I am encouraging microstock - the only way this makes any sense is if you are also submitting to a traditional agency and dumping your rejects on micro and treating it like interest on a savings account. I think it makes sense to diversify with stock and only treat micro as a very small part of an overall strategy. Here is an article I thought was interesting that I somewhat agree with: http://learnaniche.com/blog/2009/04...ck-photography/ And here is one of the few places I've found hard numbers. His return varies from .18-35ish per image and istock is his biggest. I seriously cannot imagine how much time it took this guy to get all these images submitted: http://www.microstockdiaries.com/mi...march-2009.html brad industry fucked around with this message at Apr 24, 2009 around 18:42 |
| # ? Apr 24, 2009 18:36 |
|
|
I've got a question. I'm meeting with a marketing person with a company that does countertops and flooring. They said that they were looking for someone for "some small photography jobs around our [local] plant." Assuming they like my portfolio, I'm worried they're going to ask about pricing. I would feel the most comfortable if I could find out the specifics -- like what each shoot would entail and their usage -- and then buy Fotoquote [or ask you guys  ] before giving them an estimate.Would that be a normal thing to do? Meaning, is it normal to take a little bit before giving an estimate? I'm just hoping that they don't expect to be like "Well the shoot would involve X and we'd use it for X, how much would that be?" and me to respond =/ I'm just nervous about loving it up.
|
| # ? May 2, 2009 23:53 |
|
|
dakana posted:I've got a question.
|
| # ? May 2, 2009 23:57 |
|
|
I don't think anyone expects you to be able to pull a number out of thin air. Tell them you'll sit down and come up with an estimate. I've never quoted a job on the spot.
|
| # ? May 3, 2009 03:36 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't think anyone expects you to be able to pull a number out of thin air. Tell them you'll sit down and come up with an estimate. I've never quoted a job on the spot. Brad, I envy you and the clients you work for...  To tie that in to the discussion, yes, there are some people that just expect you to pull a number out of thin air. Simply because they don't know what they want either. And you really don't want to work with those people, because they'll be just as happy/hyper-critical as if they were to have the boss's nephew do it. Hell, I still get random emails from people I haven't dealt with in years, and they want me to "just photoshop in some ----- into this photo". Of course, they expect it for free and get all huffy when I send them an estimate.
|
| # ? May 3, 2009 08:16 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Question for wedding guys: what do you charge / how do you calculate your fees for engagement photos? Got a request from a friend of a friend and I'm not even sure what would be in the ballpark of reasonable. For engagement photos, I normally look at it as my "in" to get hired for the wedding. With this frame of mind I try to use the sitting to show off my skills and get to know the couple. Typically I will do the sitting for free, and only charging for extras (prints, wedding announcement/save the date cards, travel expenses, ect.) dakana posted:I've got a question. Chances are they want to use your images for marketing. If this is the case keep in mind what you are selling to them is your copyright. They will be using your work to make them money. My rule of thumb is take your normal prices for time spent and double it.
|
| # ? May 5, 2009 09:47 |
|
|
This is an unusual step, but I need someone to brutally evaluate my wedding offerings, here: http://rfphoto.net/services.html I may have an opportunity to pick up a lot more work in the near future, and I don't want to mess it up with lousy packages. Thanks for any help.
|
| # ? May 12, 2009 23:23 |
|
|
Nihiliste posted:This is an unusual step, but I need someone to brutally evaluate my wedding offerings, here: Do you mean just the text on the site, or the photos (on your main site)? In regards to the former, the biggest thing that jumps out to me is that you "specialize" in pretty much everything. If you're pitching yourself as a wedding photographer, you might just want to emphasize the wedding/portrait aspect. Photo-wise: First 9: Left photo, middle row ought to go, the chairs are really distracting. Right photo, middle row isn't really anything special either. Bottom row, left side feels a little iffy; to me the camera is a little too high and not close enough (the lake or whatever visible on the left, mostly). Second 9: left photo, middle row doesn't really work for me, just a few strands of hair are being blown (so I'm thinking "why didn't he clone that out?") and the wooden door he's in front of makes me think it's an indoor shot, which makes the wind effect seem even more disjointed. Middle picture in the same row is a little snapshotty and has a distracting background, I'd lose it. Middle picture, bottom row could be from anybody at the reception with a Coolpix and onboard flash, it's definitely the weakest one in your portfolio and ought to be ditched. Third 9: first row, left picture - the saturation on the plants in the background is a little overdone but it's not a bad picture. first row, right side gives me an "X" when I click on it, you might want to look at that. The non-people photos are fine from a technical standpoint but again, you might want to pare your portfolio down to concentrate more on weddings/portraiture if that's what you're going after. Bottom photo on the left is a great candid (there are other good ones but you didn't ask me to be nice  )
|
| # ? May 13, 2009 03:10 |
|
|
Nihiliste posted:This is an unusual step, but I need someone to brutally evaluate my wedding offerings, here: Your offerings are similar price-wise to mine, though I part everything out so that people can mix and match prints or CDs (if you can sell prints on top of the CD, then you can make even more!). I am not sure what the exchange rates are right now though, if they have gotten better in the US's favor then your numbers may be lower than they look. Also, I have no idea if this is a good idea, but I don't list out my prices till people ask, so that I can tailor pricing to the people, and so they have already started to get interested before they get numbers (ever been to a store where the salesman showed you the product before telling you what it cost? )
|
| # ? May 13, 2009 16:59 |
|
|
Nihiliste posted:This is an unusual step, but I need someone to brutally evaluate my wedding offerings, here: How do you compare to other people in your area?
|
| # ? May 13, 2009 17:03 |
|
|
brad industry posted:How do you compare to other people in your area? Towards the lower end, but not quite bottom.
|
| # ? May 13, 2009 17:29 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Do you mean just the text on the site, or the photos (on your main site)? In regards to the former, the biggest thing that jumps out to me is that you "specialize" in pretty much everything. If you're pitching yourself as a wedding photographer, you might just want to emphasize the wedding/portrait aspect. I just meant the services page. Yeah, it seems like a broad focus, but what I'd like to think I'm doing is concentrating on portraiture while using weddings as a sideline. Hopefully the positions don't become reversed.
|
| # ? May 13, 2009 17:35 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:
This is correct. A) You'll be surprised what peoples' budgets are sometimes, B) A lot of folks perceive quality based on price, C) You won't have to worry about Teen Rebel XT undercutting you.
|
| # ? May 13, 2009 23:40 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 08:42 |
|
|
Nihiliste posted:Towards the lower end, but not quite bottom. The closer you are to the lower end the shittier clients you get because you get people who only care about price and nothing else. If you double your rates your only have to book half as many jobs to make the same amount of money. I'd rather work 5 weddings for people who value your photos vs. 10 who just want something cheap and good enough.
|
| # ? May 13, 2009 23:51 |
|
