Post 11

The other day, I was watching a video on YouTube which basically consisted of a photographer giving a presentation to some people about what he does, and how he's successful. At one point, the photographer began to discuss prices, and why he charges what he charges. I think this brought up a number of good points that potential clients don't always take into consideration.

It's no secret that good photographers charge "a lot" of money for their servies, but there's good reason for this. Not only do clients get what they pay for, usually, and to a certain extent, but providing good photographs is a challenging feat that not every person can do. There are a number of things that photographers must do besides taking quality photographs that are extremely time consuming.

The most obvious challenge photographers face, are making good photographs. There is a difference between "taking" and "making" photographs. Snapshots are taken, but art is made. If you're trying to become a photographer, but you don't have "an eye" for it, you won't make it. Not everyone is aware of "the eye" for photography, but some people have it, and some people don't. "The eye" can rarely be taught, and is usually what separates an "okay" photograph, and an "outstanding" one. Taking a photograph from the right angle, dialing in the right settings, and arranging the subject(s) so the photograph looks good is the most essential, and probably the least time consuming. Composing the photograph and pressing down the shutter button may take anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes, and may also take more than one shot. Ideally, I like to get a decent photo within a couple of shots, but this isn't always the case. Some people may think a few seconds of arranging and getting the right settings might not seem all that time consuming, but when I'm taking photos for any number of hours, those seconds begin to add up.

The second biggest challenge for photographers is editing. Editing is, without a doubt, one of the most time consuming parts of being a photographer, but it's also one of the parts that most clients aren't aware of. If you hire a photographer, and they shoot JPEGs and don't edit their images, then you're overpaying. I wish I could be satisfied with pressing the shutter button a few times while letting the camera do all of the work, but the camera doesn't know what I want in a photo. That's why I choose my settings, and then go in and touch those photos up. In my opinion, a JPEG will never look as good as an edited RAW file if it was edited by someone who knows what they're doing. Editing is probably 75% of what my clients pay for, because for me, it's one, if not the, most time consuming aspect. If I do a one hour session, I'll most likely be editing for at least another hour. The client will most likely be present for the hour I'm shooting, but once I go home, many clients don't realize that I sit at the computer for another hour to get edit the photos to where I like them. And, an hour is ideal. The time it takes to edit depends on what the client wants and what I'm shooting. If the client is satisfied with and prefers a more "minimalistic" edit, for example, slight adjustments to contrast, maybe an exposure adjustment, I could probably get through 100 photos in an hour, if all of the photos require slight tweaks. If I'm doing senior photos though, clients generally want those photos to be heavily edited. With senior photos, I'd be ecstatic with getting through 25 photos in an hour. So if I take 200 photos for a senior photo shoot, I might only be shooting for an hour or two, but I'll be editing for, potentially, eight hours. The client will see me working for the hour or two, but once I leave, I don't know if they even realize that my work isn't done yet.

Another factor that are included in cost, is the preparation that goes into a photo shoot. In an ideal situation, the client and I will both be free for the first day mentioned, but that's rarely the situation. Usually, the client and I will have conflicting schedules, and we'll both need to work around that, which requires who knows how long of going back and forth until we find a time that works, and that's if I already know the client. If I had to search for the client, and I've never worked with them before, I have to pitch myself to them, which adds only more time. I have to contact the client, probably send them some examples of my work, wait for them to look over the work I sent them, ask them if they're interested, and then work out all of the details, such as the date of the event, what they're looking for, tell them how much I charge and what is included when they pay, find out what time the event is/what time they want to schedule a session. Then, once I actually do the shooting for the amount of time they want, I have to go home and edit the photos. I then will send them a CD with the photos they requested on it. After I send out the CD, I then make sure they received the CD, and thank them for their business. Sometime before the shoot, I also have to make sure all of my lenses are cleaned, make sure my batteries are charged, make sure I have enough memory cards, and then get the lenses I think I'll use ready for the session/event. If I could figure out how much time went into this, I would.

Something else that I found to be surprisingly time-consuming, is putting files onto CDs. I recently had a client who ordered a number of photos from me. I wrote down the file names and expected to be done within half an hour or so. I didn't take into consideration that I have had three cameras in the past couple of years, and have some files with the same name. I went down the list of the photos the client ordered and typed them into my search bar. If I was lucky, only one file popped up, and then I put the file into a folder, which I then burned to a CD. Unfortunately, I think only one file popped up maybe three or four times. If more than one file came up, I had to search through the other files and make sure I was choosing the right one, which is more challenging than you may think when the thumbnails are literally the size of a thumbnail. Another thing I found out was that deleting and typing the names of the photos into the search bar took me longer than I thought. Once I thought I had all of the files on the CD, I went through the list to make sure they were all on there. Unfortunately, I'm not known for my organizational skills, and when I started writing down the names of the files, I started in the middle of the piece of paper, ran out of room, started a new column on the left side of the piece of paper, ran out of room, and then started a new column on the left side of the paper, which resulted in the files being out of order. This was my fault, and I will be sure to remember this for next time. When I was confirming that all of the photos the client wanted were on the CD, I realized I was missing one. I checked the list and files again, and then a second time. Then I stared at the list for a while and saw which one I didn't cross off. Another thing I will remember for next time is to write more neatly, so I can tell which file names are crossed off and which ones aren't...

This is also why I charge what I charge for prints/files. Sure, I make a profit when I sell prints. It doesn't cost me $10 to print an 8x10, but I take into consideration that the prints clients choose to buy are considered to be works of art. I not only captured a special moment that speaks to whoever wants to buy the print, but I took the time and effort to edit the photo, wait for that special moment to happen, interact with the client and make sure they have a pleasant experience while dealing with me, spend money on envelopes, postage and ink, but I have a cat to feed, and charging enough to break even won't provide me with a career, let alone enough money to make a living. Generally, I charge $5 for a file when I'm working with a client. There are advantages and disadvantages to selling files as oppose to prints. When I sell a print, that's the only print the client will have. They're buying something more unique than a file. When a client purchases a file from me, they can make as many prints of the file as they want, and in any size they want. If they want to make wall paper out of the files they purchase from me, they can, and don't have to pay me anything more than the $5. So looking at that one way, one may think I'm losing money. However, by selling files, I don't have to take the time to print every file they want, I don't have to mail the print, and I don't have to run out and buy more ink and paper before I want to. Before you decide you want to buy a file from me though, instead of a print to hang up on a wall, I only let clients who I shoot for purchase files from me. So in other words, if I take your child's senior photos, I supply you with a cd with the files on them. People who I don't shoot a session for can buy a print.

So, as you now know, when clients hire me to take photographs, I don't just show up, take photos, and then hand them over. There are a plethora of other time-consuming pieces that fit into the puzzle, which, I think, justify the high prices that photographers are often associated with. If anyone with a dSLR could take the same photos professional photographers make, then there would be no reason to hire someone to take photos.

(I realize after reading this post, that I sound like I'm complaining. I've decided that I've already typed too much and put too much effort into this post to start over, or change the wording, though. So, instead, I will clarify that I love taking photos, and I would never even consider aspiring to be anything else. Except maybe Boba Fett.)

Post 10

As many of you know, I am a photographer and just received my seller's permit. This means I can legally work in the state of Wisconsin, and am officially a business owner. If you, or someone you know, need a photographer, my contact information can be found on my Facebook page. My work can be found on my Flickr page. Contact me for information on my rates, or to schedule a session.

https://www.facebook.com/DPomykalski

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/

Post Nine

A lot of beginning photographers don't know when the right time to upgrade is. The thing most beginners want to upgrade is their body. I think this is usually because camera manufacturers and magazines/reviewers spend so much time on the specifications of camera bodies.

When I first started out, I thought the body was the most important thing too. It wasn't until I gained a little more experience and watched a few videos on YouTube that I learned that bodies aren't the most important thing, for a number of reasons.

Most importantly, lenses are the eyes of your camera. There isn't much difference in the way cameras record photos. All cameras, at least dSLRs, have some sort of sensor. Lenses, though, come between the photographer and the moment they're trying to capture. It may seem obvious, but sometimes people don't realize that without good glass, you won't get good photos. If someone who needs corrective lenses get a pair of glasses with low quality glass, they won't see things as well as they would with a pair of glasses with higher quality glass.  The same thing applies to lenses. Fortunately, prime lenses are usually pretty good bang for your buck. Prime lenses don't zoom, but the lack of moving usually keeps the price low and usually means the lenses are more precise. Prime lenses are usually fast as well, in terms of aperture. Other than prime lenses, good class is usually pretty expensive. Sometimes decent zoom lenses can be had for a decent price, but usually a good, fast lens will run around $2,500 if the brand of the lens begins with a "C" or an "N." Photographers also have the option of third-party lenses. I picked up a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for around $650. Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 was $2,500 last time I checked. The Tamron doesn't focus nearly as fast as the Nikon, the Tamron doesn't have the fancy coating that the Nikon has, and the image quality probably isn't as good as Nikon's either. As far as image quality goes, though, I can't tell. And for almost a third of the price, I'm not complaining. I'll most likely use the Tamron until it stops functioning, which could be quite a while.

Which brings me to my next point. Lenses aren't replaced as frequently as bodies. A replacement camera body can come out in as little as a year for lower-end bodies, such as Nikon's D3XXX line. Nikon's D3000 was released in 2009. Nikon's D3100, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2010. The D3200, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2012. So, as you can see, it doesn't take long for a lower-end body to become obsolete. Not to mention that each new version of Nikon's most inexpensive dSLR possessed features that would make anyone who just purchased the older model regret their decision as soon as they find out. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of the D3000 sold their body to get the D3100, and the owners of the D3100 did the same thing for the D3200, either. Fortunately, camera companies usually don't introduce replacements for their more expensive bodies as often, although new models of the body will sometimes be released, such as Nikon's D300 and D300s. Lenses on the other hand, can last for a photographer's entire career. If a photographer spends good money on a good piece of glass, there will be less reason to replace that lens. Sure, camera companies will add things such as vibration reduction, but those things aren't necessarily reasons to go out and buy the newest lens. I've seen plenty of photographers using lenses from decades ago and getting decent results from them. A well built lens from 1970 will, usually, still be a well built lens in 2012. Bodies from as recently as 2004 don't stand a chance when compared to a recent body, ISO performance alone  being a deciding factor. Sure, photographers can still use older digital bodies and still produce great results. I used a Nikon D70 for five months and took around 3000 photographs with it. Even though the D70 only had 6.1 megapixels, I was still satisfied with the photos. The ISO performance, five focus points, and the lack of reliability made it obvious that I needed to upgrade, though.

So when is the right time to upgrade? I wouldn't do it until I had a decent collection of lenses first. Sure, a kit lens may be great for a kit lens, but that's just it. I want my lens to be great for a lens. Lenses are unquestionably, unarguably, the most important aspect of a set up, besides the photographer, so I would strongly suggest investing in good glass, then worry about upgrading. Lenses will last you much longer than a body will. That is, of course, unless your body is unreliable. My D70 was to the point where it was slowing me down. There was also a time when I was photographing a birthday party. I got through halfway of the party before I had to switch memory cards. I continued to take photos without much more of a problem than I usually had with the D70, until I got home and found out that there weren't any images on the second card. I lost half of the birthday party. Luckily my fiance was helping me and she got photos of the second half. At that point, though, I realized there would be absolutely no way I could be a photographer without a reliable body.

On an unrelated note, this is also why I use smaller memory cards. I think right now I'm using multiple 8GB cards in my D7000. I can get about 250 photos on each one. Some photographers use huge, massive cards that can store more photos than they could possibly take on them. The idea of that scares me. What if something happens to the one card you have every photo on? I use a larger card in my D7000 in the second SD slot, but that's for backup purposes only. Memory cards don't fail often, but they do fail. I feel sorry for the day that happens to someone who, for instance, shoots a wedding all day using one card and ends up with no photos because the card fails. Just some food for thought....   

Post Eight

Today I officially registered my business and got my sellers permit. All of my prints are now for sale. Legally.

Post Seven

On Friday, I was taking photos for the Janesville Jets. I was waiting around with Devan for the game to start when Greg Hanthorn approached me and informed me that I was going to be taking photos of the puck drop, and that I was going to be one of two photographers on the ice while it was happening. Let me take a quick second that this was probably one of the most exciting things I've done throughout my photography career. Standing on the ice with a few other people made me feel more important than I probably am, but that's okay. 

Anyway, the other photographer who was on the ice with me was a photographer for the "Janesville Gazette." While waiting to go on the ice, I took the time to examine his gear. The photographer had two Canon bodies with an integrated battery grip, which means they were the top of the line at one point. They could have been older models, but they could have been the most recent. Either way, he had spent some serious money on his gear, not to mention that on both of the bodies he had "L" lenses. For those of you who don't know, only the very best Canon lenses are designated with an "L" and a red ring around the lens somewhere, so like his bodies, his lenses were flagships. 

The photographer and I went out onto the ice and waited for the puck to be dropped. The photographer may have taken a few shots before the actual puck drop, but I, on the other hand, made sure to get photos of the people interacting. For some reason, I find these moments important and usually try my best to photograph them. 

This is where I will get to the main reason for this post. As Sue Ann Thompson, who is the former First Lady of WIsconsin, was preparing to drop the puck, I looked through the view finder of my camera and patiently waited to see the puck begin to fall. As it did, I took three, maybe four photos. While I heard my shutter slap against the insides of my camera, I couldn't help but notice that the photographer from the "Gazette" was blowing through photos, utilizing up the 14 frames per second that his body could shoot at. 

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I suppose that as long as you get "that moment," it doesn't matter how it's captured. While on the other, something just seems so unprofessional about it. When one just holds down the shutter button, I feel that they no longer have to wait, or take the time to make a good photo. Especially at such a high FPS rate, one might as well take a video and just take a clip from the video to use as a photo. Besides manipulating light, I feel as though the primary purpose of photography is to get "that moment." I feel that one of the main things that goes into capturing important moments is planning and anticipation, which are both pointless when photographers simply hold down the shutter button, filling whatever they're using to record their photos with almost the same thing in each frame.