

Why do professional photographers charge so much? - hypr_geek
http://www.modelmayhem.com/education/photography/291-why-do-professional-photographers-charge-so-much

======
jseliger
I wrote a long guide for Reddit's photography section about how to monetize a
photography hobby:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1bxf6e/the_busi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1bxf6e/the_business_of_photography_which_is_going_to_be/)
, but the subtext is "Don't bother." For most people there's not enough money
in it.

Photography as a profession is currently bifurcated: there are a smallish
number of high-end shooters (of whom it sounds like Bickley is one) and a very
large number of Guys With Cameras (GWCs) on Craigslist, Model Mayhem, and
elsewhere. The temptation is obvious: photography is fun, it's possible to
product decent images with cheap gear these days, and a lot of people want to
give professional shooting a go.

But the reality is a lot harder:

 _Let's say you want to make a living as a full-time photographer, and let's
set a reasonable middle-class lifestyle at $45,000 a year (your number may be
higher or lower). If you're trying to bill at $50, your take-home is probably
closer to $25 an hour. To make $45,000, you'll have to bill at least 1,800
hours per year, or 35 hours per week, 52 weeks a year, paid. Adjust those
numbers accordingly for vacations, illnesses, etc. (you don't get two weeks of
paid vacation as an independent contractor)._

Yet a lot of people are comparing real professions with GWCs who just got a
D7000 and will shoot for $75 to "get experience." There is a demographically
infinite number of these guys. So when average people see how much real
professionals cost, they blanch, because they're often comparing pros to GWCs.
Some GWCs can be reasonably good. Almost everyone charging over $100 an hour
is really good. But there's little middle ground anymore.

One other note: Bickley might be shooting with an $8000 D4 or 1D-X, but by now
many of their predecessors can be bought for $1000 – $2000. The OMFG AMAZING
cameras of 2008 (Nikon D700, Canon 5D II, Sony's FF camera the name of which
escapes me) that lots of pros shot with are $1000 - 1500, and for most
purposes at base ISO they're still awesome and overkill. There are still
reasons to buy $8000 in gear, but it's possible to produce equivalent work in
many situations with much less.

 _edit_ : Also, the first $8000 camera one buys is absurdly expensive, but
when a new model appears most people sell their old one and use the proceeds
to buy the new one, while using the cost of the new one as a tax write-off.
Almost no one buys a new $8000 camera from scratch every year.

~~~
decasteve
If your heart is not in it 100%, "don't bother" is good advice.

Photography is a profession for those who either "picked their parents well"
or can't stand not to do it, i.e. your life's passion.

~~~
slantyyz
>> If your heart is not in it 100%, "don't bother" is good advice.

Very true. I would bet that many budding wedding photographers will realize
that they're in over their heads the first time they deal with a bridezilla,
mob or mog (mother of bride/groom) on the day of the shoot.

Being a pro photographer requires you to be really good with people,
especially the bad ones. It's not just enough to be good with a camera.

~~~
MartinCron
I shot a wedding as a favor for a friend of a friend, and even though the
entire wedding party was a joy to work with, it was some of the most intense
and exhausting work I've ever done.

I've loved photography for my entire life, but I don't envy the people who
shoot weddings for a living.

------
bradly
My wife and I recently had a professional photographer come out to take photos
of our newborn and it was quite frustrating. Apparently it is common for
photographers to not give you your digital copies after the shoot. We _can_
however purchase separately a digital copy for an individual photo at $25 a
piece. Want an 8x10? $50. Want to post the entire session to Facebook for your
family to see? n*$25. I asked what she normally earns from prints on average
from a shoot and offered to just pay that for the digital copies, but she
wasn't up for it. Also, how long does she have to keep my photos to allow me
to order more prints? 3 months? 6 months? What if I want a print a year from
now? What if she goes out of business next week?

So for me, charge what ever you want to charge for the session, but for
goodness sakes, give people their photos. That is what they are paying you
for.

~~~
cwisecarver
No, it's not, if you RTFA you would see that you're paying for their time and
talent. The photographer still holds the copyright to those photos because
they took them. Some photographers will be happy to license or even sell the
rights but that's going to be a significant extra charge. It's the difference
between buying a print of the Mona Lisa and buying the Mona Lisa. That digital
file is their negative and you could very easily take that into Photoshop,
make it look like it was painted by a clown and then put it up on your website
with the photographer credit. You can do that if you want but you're going to
pay for the privilege.

~~~
jff
My employer pays for my time and talent. Freelancing programmers are paid for
their time and talent. I, however, assign copyright over my works to my
employer, because that's part of the terms of my employment. If photographers
want to extort $25 for a .jpg, that's fine, but let's not pretend it's
anything more.

I'd rather buy my own camera and learn to take photos properly than pay $25
per digital copy, it would be more fun.

~~~
cwisecarver
Contract, for-hire photographers aren't employees. Freelance programmers give
up their copyright willingly. Just because you negotiated badly doesn't mean
photographers have to as well.

Go buy your own camera and learn to take photos properly! I would encourage
everyone to do that. The exact moment that you grasp mastery of photography
will be the day that you understand why photographers don't give up their
copyright or hand over digital files to you.

~~~
thedufer
> Freelance programmers give up their copyright willingly.

No, they give them up because that's _the entire point of hiring a
freelancer_. It sounds absurd to pay someone to create something but not
actually get that thing for yourself. That's what the money is in exchange
for.

~~~
nthj
> No, they give them up because that's _the entire point of hiring a
> freelancer_.

Not really. My clients are paying for results, and part of those results
include a license to use the code I write forever.

But I never give up the copyright. I frequently re-use techniques, libraries,
modules, etc across clients, and in fact would be stupid not to.

------
swang
HN's reaction to this is really odd.

I remember an article that was posted here a few months back where a
photographer complained about this exact same thing. That people did not want
to pay for high quality images done by a professional. He was criticized for
not "getting with the times", that anyone can take a picture so he better drop
his prices!

I guess this article is written much better and has hard numbers to describe
how little most photographers are making. But I wonder if the developers who
complain about people lowballing them for their knowledge/experience are the
same ones who tell photographers that they need to charge lower prices.

~~~
fuzzywalrus
I think the problem with Photography is the democratization of the form.

If you hand an unskilled photographer a good camera, they could accidentally
shoot a few damn fine photos, where as with paints, you almost guaranteed you
will not accidentally paint a great painting, or as a developer, accidentally
code a great project. This cheapens photography as an art form.

Having dealt with many clients with poor photography, I will say, not enough
people are willing to shell out for good photography and good digital dark
room skills.

------
slantyyz
The problem is with the phrase "so much". I actually don't think the average
photographer charges much at all.

The problem is really with the customer's perception of the value of a
professional's time and the work that they do.

It doesn't help when Canon produces ads for an entry level DSLR that ends with
the bold statement "This ad was shot with this camera!". It ignores the fact
that the ad was likely shot by an expensive professional with additional
expensive lighting equipment and a staff of assistants. When a customer starts
to think "All I need is a nice camera, and I can do that too!", you've got an
uphill battle when it comes to educating customers about the value of a
professional.

On HN, I'd bet that many of us have probably encountered people who have read
or seen books with titles like "Learn HTML in 2 hours" or "Learn iOS
programming in 7 days" and think that spectacular apps and sites can be
created with little to no effort.

~~~
keithg
"The problem is really with the customer's perception of the value of a
professional's time and the work that they do."

Actually I think it's the opposite. It has to do with the photographer's
overvalued opinion of their work. How many family budgets can justify $500 for
a set of family portraits? How may budgets can justify $1500 for a set of
family portraits?

There are a lot more Hampton Inns than Ritz Carltons for a reason. Every
photographer thinks they are the Ritz Carlton.

~~~
slantyyz
>> How many family budgets can justify $500 for a set of family portraits? How
may budgets can justify $1500 for a set of family portraits?

Not many, I guess, but the reality is that $500 will buy you an "average"
photographer (i.e., a Hampton Inn). The really good ones cost way more than
that.

I would argue that having a professional portrait is a bit of a "luxury"
purchase. If you don't want to pay $500 for a set of family portraits, then
you can always find someone you know with a camera to take a photo of your
family for free.

------
zwieback
Why do professional _Xs_ charge so much? Because they can do something you
can't do as well, that's why you hired them.

~~~
sp332
Trivially true and uninformative. The article explains what, exactly, a
photographer does better.

~~~
zwieback
I wasn't suggesting not to read the article but that the same applies to all
crafts.

------
Pxtl
The entire industry has been overtaken by technology somewhat, but the pricing
hasn't caught up. A serious professional with professional gear? He can charge
what he wants. But for most of the semi-pro weekend-warriors? They're going to
find constant downward price-pressure because it's not the '80s anymore and
the quality of their work isn't really that much higher than a layman with
$500 of equipment, at least outdoors.

People put up with it because of historical inertia, but it's not going to get
any better for most photogs.

------
toddrew
I'm not a fan of these "photographer justifying their costs of business to
amateur models" rants.

Like any profession you have the cost of doing business and the prices that
you set. If someone can't afford your prices then you simply don't take them
on as a client. If your work can't bring in clients at the price you feel is
fair, the you should re-think you prices, approach to work, marketing to
attract the clients that can pay, or find a new profession.

~~~
venomsnake
This is not a rant. Also I think it is informative. Sometimes the public needs
education - after all there was the situation with gaming PCs in the early
2000s - you had to explain to the people while if they want quality you cannot
drop before a certain threshold.

~~~
toddrew
The public doesn't need to be educated because the public rarely hires
professional fashion photographers. A professional fashion photographer should
be making their money from brands and modeling agencies.

The problem is that many photographers do vanity work for amateur models who
for many reasons (age, location etc...) will never make a career as a
professional model. Professional models don't pay for their own photo shoots.
They're working enough contracts to not have to fill their portfolio with spec
work, or are represented by an agency who will cover the costs of a shoot.

Many photographers who shoot fashion style portraits and make a bit of money
doing it, consider themselves professional fashion photographers and expect to
be paid as one. The problem is that they'll never command the same prices by
doing portfolio work as they would doing work in the industry for brands.

------
donniefitz2
I'm a part-time photographer and I shoot portraits frequently. I learned
pretty early on that it's almost impossible to make a living at. But, I really
enjoy the creative outlet and it gets me away from coding all day.

At first, I charged a low per-session fee and tried to make money selling
prints and digital rights on a per-image basis. But really, I don't like that
model at all (neither did my customers) so now I charge a higher session fee
and personal use rights to the images are included, in full resolution.

Most people don't realize how much time is spent in post-production. I spend
hours re-touching. Not to mention, the time it takes to learn things like off-
camera lighting and the cost of the gear associated. But, I'm not complaining,
it's fun to learn.

I don't really profit from photography but it does cover some of the cost of
my gear and it's just plain fun to do. Trying to make a living with
photography would be extremely difficult, but clearly some people are able to
pull it off.

------
noonespecial
Most minor professions from house builder to car salesman have a little bit of
institutionalized dishonesty built in to them. This has creeped in by
increments over a long time and so doesn't strike the practitioners of these
professions as dishonest at all because "that's the way it's always been
done."

People with a fresh perspective will compare it with other, less "storied"
professions and it will feel (perhaps rightly so) like a scam.

Do some research and negotiate up front. If you make an unexpected demand at
the end thats quite different than the usual, you'll make the photographer
feel as if they are the one who's being scammed. If they know up front that
this shoot is going to be different than "the norm", they will often be
surprisingly willing to think differently.

------
LandoCalrissian
$500 for five hours with a professional photographer seems very really
reasonable to me, far from overpriced.

~~~
smackfu
Yeah, call it a wedding and the price triples or more.

~~~
cwisecarver
Weddings only happen once. I can come give you a free second shoot of your
baby pictures if I totally bomb the first one. The risk in shooting a wedding
is much higher.

~~~
commieneko
This can't be over stressed. I've a friend who used to work as a shooter for
several photographers. A good photographer won't let a freelancer anywhere
near a wedding utill they've proved themselves on less critical jobs. The
stress is unbelievable and the liability is enormous, both in dollar terms and
in reputation.

------
ef4
My only pet peeve is with the photographers who still think it makes sense to
price by the print.

Please just set a price for your services and then give me the files. Printing
used to be a value-added activity. It's not anymore, unless you're doing
something unusual.

------
tzs
I get the impression from several comments that many people think that if you
just state in the hiring contract that you are hiring someone to make a "work
for hire", that will mean that you own the copyright.

Not so, at least in the US!

To be a "work for hire", one of two things must be true.

1\. It is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
employment. The key word here is "employee". A contractor is generally NOT an
employee for purposes of copyright law. Whether or not one is an employee is
determined by looking at a bunch of factors, including who provides the tools
for the work, the duration of the work, whether the hiring party has the right
to assign additional work, the hired party's role in hiring assistants,
benefits provides, and many others.

2\. The parties expressly agree in a written, signed, instrument that the work
shall be considered a work for hire __AND __it is a work specially ordered or
commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a
motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary
work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer
material for a test, or as an atlas.

Things like wedding photographs probably cannot be construed as falling into
any of those types of works listed in #2, and so cannot be works for hire, no
matter what you say in the contract. Copyright will belong to the contractor
(unless you manage to somehow actually end up with an employer/employee
relationship under #1, which is hard). If you want copyright, write the
contract so that you are buying the copyrights from the photographer.

------
scottshea
I love how this breaks down the time involved outside of the actual picture
taking. It is similar for other professions as well; you pay for the hour that
you are with them but it covers the hours outside of that time as well.

------
dozerjenn
A client is paying for studio time, digital copies (specified in
consultation), and the desired outcome for images.

The photographer is paying for studio rental, time spent post processing, the
CD/thumb drive for digital copies. The rest is divided into varying
percentages for employee salaries, rent, food, and miscellaneous but necessary
costs such as gas, medical/business/car insurance, clothing and entertainment.
Don't forget, Uncle Sam wants a cut so a photographer must set aside money
from each session and every sale for taxes every year.

Printed copies may appear outrageously expensive but, the photographer has to
purchase the paper, ink and maintain the machine. They may send out images to
be printed and have to pay for such services.

Photographers most often want to print their own images to ensure proper
color/saturation handling - this speaks much about the quality of the image.
Printable copies may be made available to the client and the photographer
stands to lose much on the little profit they gain from prints when the client
takes home high res images; this will show in a larger outright cost for the
CD with printable images. The photographer will(should) state how long they
will retain a copy of the images in their records so you may return for more
prints within that specified time limit, or purchase the printable images when
you are able to do so.

------
keithg
Personally, I will only have family photos done with photographers that offer
a DVD with images as part of the package. That is my opinion and how I choose
to spend my money. There are photographers that offer DVDs, so obviously there
is a market for it. And those who are good photographers and business people
will find a way to be successful in that market.

My problem is not necessarily with the price, but the way prices are
structured. People balk at paying $25 per print because they know it's a
ridiculous price for a print. Even the highest end online printers are in the
$2-3 range for 8x10. But we as consumers also know that you can get very good
quality 8x10 prints for half that. So they rightfully question why they are
paying $25 for something they know costs the producer 1/10th the price. In a
world of $1 apps, $25 prints are bound to get some push back.

I understand the photographer needs to make money, so don't whine about all of
the burdensome costs. Give me a bottom line and let me decide if you are worth
it or not.

Last comment ... if the photographer is complaining about time spent
retouching and post-processing, then they need to either improve their
photoshop skills or improve their photo skills. If it's your job, you'd better
get shots right out of the camera that need very little editing or touch ups.

~~~
mfringel
_If it's your job, you'd better get shots right out of the camera that need
very little editing or touch ups._

So your preferred development environment is cat(1), then?

------
brittohalloran
This is an industry ripe for disruption. I took a half assed shot at it last
year (still online but left for dead) with shutterhire.com

My basic concept was that at some price photographers would give away all the
digitals, customers should be able to "use" them (but not sell them) as they
wished, and that people should choose photographers almost exclusively on the
quality of their work. The business would be a marketplace fee for arranging
the transaction.

I ultimately gave up due to personal priorities (children / day job) and a
complicated legal mountain to climb (who owns copyright? Do you force everyone
into a contract?).

If anyone wants to pick it up I'd be happy to share the code.

------
alanlewis
Because that is what the market will bear.

~~~
venomsnake
There is a rapidly growing class of professional hobbyists - people that throw
a lot of money and effort into shooting just for the fun of it. I would not be
surprised if this puts somewhat downward pressure on the prices in that
industry except in the top tier.

------
beat
Something those who think "work for hire" and "you should own the IP" don't
seem to understand... a huge part of being a good photographer is being a good
EDITOR, and learning to keep only the very best images. I'm not a
"professional" in the full time sense, but I've released professional work. My
"keep rate" is 2-3%. I'm simply rejecting 49 out of every 50 photos I take. I
do not EVER want ANYONE to see those other 49. Many are just plain bad, and
even the good ones aren't good enough for my critical standards.

Because of this, I would not under any circumstances sign a work-for-hire
contract as a photographer. No good photographer I know would do that.

Something else to consider... for many photographers, the editing process is
inseparable from the photo. The in-camera raw image is only an intermediate
step. I don't know how many times I've been asked for a complete set of raw
images by models or performers (I mostly shoot dance performance), and they've
reacted with surprise to my flat NO answer. I'm not willing to let someone
else make aesthetic decisions on my raw images, except perhaps in cases where
I consider the person an artistic peer and treat it as a co-project.

~~~
moron4hire
Somehow sports journalists do a lot of work for hire and it doesn't ruin their
reputation.

~~~
beat
Sports journalists don't have to worry about some bridezilla taking their
images, soft-filtering them and adding glowing pink hearts, and publishing
every single one, no matter how awful. Their work-for-hire is going to
professional editors. This is a VERY important distinction.

~~~
moron4hire
Actually, it's not a distinction at all, because the fear is unwarranted.
There is no realistic impact that such a bridezilla can have on a
photographer.

~~~
beat
There is if artistic integrity matters.

~~~
moron4hire
art is a completely different subject from works created for hire

~~~
beat
No, there's coupling involved. Every paying job I've ever gotten as a
photographer, I've gotten due to my artistic qualities. This isn't universal,
but it's common. So releasing work that undermines my artistic integrity also
undermines my commercial appeal.

Besides, art is WHY many of us take up photography! When you just whore out
your work for money, it's demoralizing. You think less of yourself as an
artist, and as a person.

~~~
moron4hire
I'm not denying that such an image could possibly besmirch the name of a
photographer, I'm just denying that it could have such the reach that it would
require such destructive terms as exclusive copyright. It's the same sort of
classic conflation and/or misunderstandings of impact and likelihood that
plagues security audits.

And it's only demoralizing if you subscribe to the notion that "art" is more
important than "work" or that "work" is less important than "art". These are
largely conceits that are forced on us by our culture, so you'd basically be
letting other people's values make you a depressed mess.

------
dcgibbons
If you hire a photographer and simply want digital copies of the photos you
took, then you deserve what you get. You are making the mistake of thinking
what the photographer is doing is simply capturing images. There's no reason
to pay them a lot because they aren't providing a very good service.

A lot of newbie photographers do indeed cater to this segment of the business.
Those photographers suck and do not wind up making very much money. It is the
typical race to the bottom.

Photographers who are successful are creating experiences, and high-end
presentations of their work are part of that experience.

If all you want is digital copies, then hire your Uncle Bob with a case of
beer. Chances are he has the same high-end equipment a good pro does, and
probably knows how to use it, too.

This same issue is true for a lot of professionals, not just photographer. The
digital revolution has greatly lowered the barrier of entry, and that's a good
thing, but it also means a lot of the photographers you are dealing with in
the marketplace just aren't any good.

------
jiggy2011
This reminds me a bit of the article posted yesterday about lowering margins
on website development.

We are living in an economy where technology is enabling a variety of self-
service options to professional services.

These self service options are often dramatically cheaper than retaining a
person with professional experience. For example paying $10 for a site
building application vs $1000 to hire a web designer.

The answer of course is to sell the benefits of professional skill to your
client. The trouble of course is that often clients themselves have terrible
taste and are bad at distinguishing good work from bad. The website they built
with yellow text on pink background may "look amazing!" to them so the
difficult part is making the case to them that many of their customers will be
put off by this in a way that may cost them sales.

------
danso
I don't make my living as a professional photographer, but have done enough
jobs and shoots to have a good feel for it. People who think photogs charge
too much have the wrong perception of photography: they think that the hard
part of photography is taking the picture (and perhaps knowing how to operate
the camera)...and since anyone can, once in awhile, take an amazing photo with
something as simple as a phone camera, then why should pro photographers get
paid so much when their "work" can be done by amateurs?

In my experience, shooting the photo is the easiest part. Being "there", as
in, the right place to shoot the photo, is even more critical. Is your child
getting married? Do you really want to experience their wedding vows with a
10-pound camera held in front of your face?

If your photoshoot is non-documentary...i.e. you want to photog to help create
a scene...well, now you're not paying for just a photographer, but a creative
director.

And of course, a good camera is just a part...sometimes a very _small_ part,
of a good photo. Lighting equipment matters much more...and while you may have
a great $1000 prosumer camera, you probably don't have $1000 to $10000 in
lighting equipment (or the assistants needed to operate it).

And finally, the least fun part of all: editing and organizing the photos.
I've heard that editing video takes about 10 hours per minute of usable
video...the ratio isn't as drastic for photography, but even photogs with a
good workflow (such as a Lightroom setup), can spend hours editing down to the
best dozen photos out of a thousand.

To reiterate the point: shooting a photo with a camera is the _fun_ and easy
part. The rest of what it takes to make a great photo is what you're paying
the big money for.

~~~
ChuckMcM
It is the same with any artistic endeavour is it not? Putting it into
technical terms, anyone can write a bit of code but not everyone can put
together a product. Lots of people can fix a problem in a piece of code, and
yet a lot fewer of them can fix the fundamental issue.

As with most things in life there is an external view which cannot see the
nuances, and an internal view which sees all or most of these challenges.

Trying to evaluate the 'value' of something without internalizing the
challenge of providing that something doesn't work.

~~~
danso
I think this is really the case...and so we could easily turn this into a
discussion over lines-of-code as a misguided metric for judging programmers.

But your comments remind me of Picasso...it's fair to say that some of his
work could be physically done by an amateur. But Picasso was prolific at
drawing, including realistic figures. One of the best exhibits I've seen
showed how he started with drawing realistic objects and then, in later
drafts, deconstructing them to the surreal, deceptively simple forms that they
eventually take in the final product.

But I think the illusion of parity is especially strong (and deceptive) in
photography. Because you can literally know nothing about a camera except how
to push the shutter and you can still produce a fantastic photo...whereas with
drawing/painting...the physical act of just _doing_ them is a barrier,
nevermind actually making something.

~~~
beat
Camera software and automated exposure and focus have drastically reduced the
technical barrier. As a photographer, I'm both amused and appalled by people
who spend two grand on a camera, leave it on "Auto", realize their photos
suck, and wonder if they should buy an even more expensive camera.

If you don't have a computer best-guessing exposure for you and you don't
understand exposure yourself, you're screwed. If you understand exposure, you
don't NEED the computer to make guesses for you. My expensive DSLR is set to
manual, so I don't have the computer "guess" the wrong thing.

------
salimmadjd
I've dabbled in professional photography a bit. I can tell you, you don't get
rich as a photographer. To become a really good professional photographer you
have to put about 5-10 years into it. There are a lot of cost, from equipments
to other things. Not to mention the basic cost of doing a business. Answering
10 clients to just get one. Commuting, transportations, etc. There is a lot of
cost in post-production. I occasionally shoot weddings. And I spend 3-4X as
much time in post as the hours I spent shooting a wedding. So if you're
charging $200/hr. You really making $40/hr. This is not does include commute
cost, equipment wear and tear or rentals.

The best gig I've ever gotten was for a client who flew me to Lake Como, Italy
for a week. But you had to envy the view while you were shooting all day :)

------
Kiro
Oh, how we will laugh at this article when this inert industry has been
disrupted.

------
kyriakos
I had the luck to find a photographer for my wedding who was willing to give
me high resolution versions of my photos. He didn't even charge more than the
others I contacted before him.

The other thing that bothers me with all the rest of the photographers I
contacted for the job was that they all want to sell you their overpriced
albums, prints etc on top of the photographer's price. The guy that got the
job in the end explicitly told me, he doesn't arrange for prints, but if we
want them he can recommend and arrange it for us but we get to pay the printer
directly and not him.

------
moron4hire
The thinly veiled condescension of professional photographers like this is why
I eventually got out of the business.

It never upset me that the models didn't understand the business or that I had
to explain what was going on. Of course they don't know what are common
contract terms for photographers, they aren't doing the photographer's job and
they've never done the photographer's job.

It's no different in software contracting. Of course my clients don't have a
flipping clue what it takes to make software; that's the entire point of them
hiring me.

And keeping exclusive copyright--while I know is completely common--is
straight up ridiculous. Sure, if you're David LaChapelle, you probably will be
making money off of the images themselves at some point, rather than just the
session fee. Of course, if you're David LaChapelle, you're also not taking
gigs from the subject of the pictures, you're getting hired by magazines who
are also hiring the models for you, and the magazine will demand the
copyright.

But the vast majority of your garden variety wedding photographers and "Glamor
ShotZ!" photographers aren't going to do jack with the photos. Who the hell is
going to want to buy photos of YOUR wedding other than YOU? At most, they're
going to stick them in their portfolio and use them as advertising. The
exclusive copyright of those images is so completely valueless that the only
reason the photographer could possibly want them is to gouge the customer for
prints. It's disingenuous rent-seeking.

~~~
redblacktree
Of course, they get the benefit of charging you _per copy_.

~~~
moron4hire
right, yes, that's what rent-seeking alluded to.

------
laserDinosaur
Is this any different to purchasing a program but not getting the source code?

------
workbench
Whatever the time is to do the shoot + every hour of experience and learning
until the start of the shoot.

------
nwzpaperman
Unemployment doesn't cover all of their living expenses? My first project
manager at HP went into photography several years ago...and so did many of the
other displaced workers during post-2008.

