Making money taking pictures.
Doug
an interest in focusing on people and pets. Does anyone have some ideas they
would like to exchange on marketing and selling sittings? What works to get
business and what doesn't? etc. Taking great pictures is one thing. Getting
people to pay you to come and take pictures is another. Any ideas would be
appreciated. Thanks. Doug
Dan Birchall
I suppose building up a portfolio is probably so obvious that it doesn't
need saying, but heck, I'll say it anyway! ;) Surely some friends with
pets would be willing, uh, guinea pigs.
-Dan (bad pun du jour)
zeitgeist
Take portraits of local celebs with their pets. Start small with 'unsung'
folks that everybody knows and likes, then as you get good, get noticed, tie
in with some charity or rescue group to make contact for you to get real
celebs. Set a goal for 100, settle on a couple dozen portraits, print them
big, and/or frame them nice. (8x10's just won't do it) 11x17 minimum if
you get into matting and frames.
If you have the money to hold off on sales now, you can really push the
public relations buttons by keeping things under wraps.
The charity you tie in with should line up a gallery space. Hopefully the
mall where there is traffic, but it doesn't really matter that much, a bank,
a bookstore, etc. The point is, there will be an opening, there will be a
lot of interest to see the results of your work, critical mass builds, cause
the subjects will be there probably with some family, and these are a lot of
people who know a lot of other people, are respected and beloved by a lot
town folks cause of who they are, what they did or do in social activities,
political, media whatever.
So now you become validated as cool. See, your name and photographs are in
the paper, these folks are talking about you, and everybody that likes these
folks will think nice about you.
Print a couple extras of each image, small this time, 8x10's will be fine,
and assemble an album. Use one of those really nice leather albums, one of
those hand made leather ones, if all your images are of a uniform size you
can have a flush mount album custom made album for about the cost of a
chunky typical wedding album that looks rich. Have the charity auction one
off. should go for a couple thousand bucks especially if you or the charity
did their homework and got a lot community leaders like lawyers and other
profe$$ionals involved.
after the show you can make the images available to the participants, or
make others for a price that suits your now validated artistic visions
worth. So far you have put a lot of time and effort into this, you are
not selling pieces of paper, you can set up a booth in a Petco and do pix
for five or ten bucks like they sometimes have if you want to do that.
Pick a number that is so freakin high it takes your breath away. You may
have trouble saying it without shaking the first couple times. Lets say,
$1,000 for your image, signed even. Why not? Have you ever gone into an
art gallery, even some tourist trap place? I'm not talking the flea market
swap meet hotel/motel 'starving artists (c)' this weekend only $49.95 any
painting... You go into some of these places and sure they might have
something for under a grand but you will be surprised just how fast they
have you looking at an 'investment' piece that costs more than your car.
Say you sell...one third of them. thats not bad for a couple months work,
probably free time efforts, plus extra print sales, plus picking up other
work cause everybody is talking about you and all those cool pet pictures.
In the meantime, video tape yourself shooting a couple of these sessions.
put it on your local cable access channel, keep low key, not an infomercial,
just a how to type thing. You'd be surprised how many people will see it.
Give talks at Elk's clubs, church groups, these places are STARVED for
speakers, see you're joe cool now, they'll love to have you.
This reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
Jeffrey Frankel
Is this your life story or are you a novelist?
Jeffrey Frankel
"zeitgeist" <blkhat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vBtr9.74653$rz6.16562@sccrnsc02...
JustaPawn
with
> an interest in focusing on people and pets.
See if you can work a deal with a local pet store to setup once a week and do
pet portraits. Place near me is doing it and they're booked every weekend!
Store gets a portion and the draw, you get a ready made market.
zeitgeist
>
My life story is rather banal, and I spent far too much time as a cheapie
kiddie pix shooter doing door to door family photo coupon crap.
As for being a novelist, how can anyone write fiction when reality is so
weird.
As for my reply to the question of how to make money in photography, I
presume from your reaction that suggestion seems like the delusions of a
drugged science fiction fancier in a mental ward.
Unfortunately, these ideas are not mine. However I cannot give full justice
to the entire concept of marketing artistic products, branding and
validation in a few hastily written paragraphs in a newsgroup post,
especially when I'm drawing from fuzzy memories of workshops and seminars
long past.
The truth is, this is what works for many photographers in many parts of the
country, from wealthy suburban enclaves, (where admittedly you have a much
better chance of success when your pool of potential clients can leave tips
for bar tabs larger than my mortgage) to urban fashion centers. It is also
working in rural poverty point and hick town. (In fact it should be easier
cause there are much fewer other 'cool' things and happenings in the middle
of nowhere than in New York or LA where every possible product seen in any
fashion and priveledge magazine is vying for attention.)
Just about every PPA type school has an advanced portraiture class where the
instructor has centered his/her marketing around a program similar to this.
Gregory Phelps in Brownsville TX (and there's a weird mostly poverty area)
is one of the typical speakers who charges $500 for an 8x10 print (IIRC) but
aims for $3 or 4 thousand for a wall portrait. His main promotional effort
is a yearly display of the 100 business women of (brownsville? southern tx?)
as appointed by some charity program. They find the subjects, he shoots
most of them, full designer portrait concept (pre-session consultation, full
makeover, location setting, heavy duty artwork and retouch, canvass mount
24x30) and there is a big luncheon openning, the exhibit is up in some
convention center, he sells about half to 2/3rds for an average of $5 per.
Paul Tumason in Los Gatos CA does something similar with the symphony down
there, he's the one who taught me the wall of light concept I blather on so
much about.
There is a guy from Austrailia that did a talk on the need for secrecy
before the openning to really hype interest in the show. He talked the
manager of a state run art gallery into allowing him a show on his
documentary style of portraiture, after badgering the guy of a year or more
he finally said to bring in a couple sample shootings to discuss with the
board. He brought in 3 and in a couple days got a message on his phone that
started "matthew you ^#%$@" because the three he delivered where 2/3rd of
the board of directors. So with permission of the board he contacted nearly
everybody at the top of the business and social lists in town and did a
number of photosessions. All were kept secret till the gallery openning,
all the participants were sent tickets that they were to sell as part of the
charity tie in.
The upshot was, the guy had 50-60 people, mostly the top of the food chain
folks in town selling or giving away these tickets to see the openning that
they really really really wanted to see, and soon everybody was talking
about it and at the openning there were so many people the police had to
block off surrounding streets, it was hands down the most successful gallery
openning in the aussie national art program. The mayor, police captain,
head of the bar association, bishop, etc were all dragging their families
and friends down, ten bucks a ticket to the charity (OK it was aussie
dollars) and the album of collected images from the show was auctioned off
for $4,000 in heavy bidding between some doctor and an architect and most of
the images from the show were sold. Not bad for a guy who was merely a
wedding photographer and part time news stringer. He hustled so much, even
got kodak to donate the film and the lab to print the show images at cost.
anyway, don't take my word for it. nor the rants of any newsgroup post, I'm
just making a suggestion. anybody can try it, or they can hustle $5
polaroids at the pet store like I saw the other day. I spent ten years
whacking two year olds with teddy bears for a couple bucks a shot. I'd
rather take some business woman, a professional, any number of interesting
people to interesting places around town and try to make serious art for
serious money than hustle square inches of photographic paper for pocket
change.
Oh a woman in Petaluma did a series of people on their harly's, got a coffee
table book out it, sold a lot of portraits (I mean besides to the clients,
people bought pictures of various people, strangers, sitting on their hogs.)
I went off on this subject cause I thought it, (the theme of local
heros/famous/popular townsfolks) would be a great theme for somebody into
pets.
Pets are great subjects, their owners get emotionally attached, sometimes
even more so than their own kids, animals in trouble get more attention in
news and charities than people sometimes (a few lucky homeless pets get far
better treatment than homeless street people in several california cities.)
and any gallery showing of familiar faces with their pets would be sure to
get attention in the media and the public.
Media validation is pure gold, if your on tv, if your in the paper, then you
must be somebody, its true, it works. That combined with word of mouth
makes it exponentially better. So when you say, this image is $1,000, they
don't see you as just another guy who farts and belches like everybody else
they know, your the guy the other cool folks in town had their picture taken
by who was on TV or in the paper.
thnk about it and/or laugh about it, I don't care, it works for me... I wish
I learned this much earlier...
zeitgeist
> There is a guy from Austrailia that did a talk on the need for secrecy
> before the openning to really hype interest in the show.
Malcolm Mattieson? He's a rep for Queensbury albums now. He comes to the
US about once a year to give workshops or talks and is worth every effort to
see.
Todd Walker
dou...@attbi.com says...
Every weekend in the month of October, I am taking pictures at the
pumpkin patch at one of our local churches. The church gets 15% of the
net profits and I get publicity. I am making a little money but that
wasn't my primary goal in doing this. I live in a relatively small town
(about 65,000) and word of mouth is the best advertising around here.
After getting their pictures back, I have had several people ask me
about portraits, Christmas cards, etc. I am just doing this on the side
because I enjoy photography and for a little extra money, so I am so far
accomplishing my goal.
--
________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Olympus E20
Olympus C3020
________________________
Jeffrey Frankel
I love it. What you write fascinates me. I agree with your ideas, they are
all gems.
Jeffrey Frankel
"zeitgeist" <blkhat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1wLr9.88954$oq6.24247@sccrnsc01...
Mxsmanic
All of the fine arts are similarly afflicted. The problem is that the
supply of talent always exceeds demand, and that art is something that
nobody really needs, so paying for it is extremely discretionary.
"Doug" <dou...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
U4gr9.60256$uF6.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Jeffrey Frankel
"Taking pictures and making money are almost a contradiction in terms."
"that art is something that
> nobody really needs, so paying for it is extremely discretionary"
There are many people whose life would be severely impoverished without art,
music and beautiful objects, atmosphere etc
Nobody wants to live on subsistence level and most things we buy today,
food, clothes, entertainment, houses, furniture include a high premium for
quality/art which is over and above the necessary life sustaining element.
Jeffrey Frankel
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fc6dnTl1l7F...@giganews.com...
Mxsmanic
message de news: 10350527...@spynews6.telepac.pt...
> I don't agree that "Taking pictures and making money
> are almost a contradiction in terms."
Perhaps you don't ... but the fact remains that very few photographers get
rich from taking pictures. Many can't even support themselves with
photography alone.
This problem is not unique to photographer; it is true for all of the fine
arts, for reasons I have already stated.
> ... or with the statement "that art is something that
> > nobody really needs, so paying for it is extremely
> discretionary"
And yet it is true. One can live easily without art, but living without
food or water is much more difficult.
> There are many people whose life would be severely
> impoverished without art, music and beautiful objects,
> atmosphere etc
Impoverished is not the same as impossible.
> Nobody wants to live on subsistence level and most
> things we buy today, food, clothes, entertainment,
> houses, furniture include a high premium for quality/
> art which is over and above the necessary life
> sustaining element.
Quality and art are two different things, so I don't know why you confuse
them in a single statement.
Not everyone cares about art. Some people just want function.
zeitgeist
> Perhaps you don't ... but the fact remains that very few photographers get
> rich from taking pictures. Many can't even support themselves with
> photography alone.
>
You know, I'd say the percentage of photographers getting rich is about the
same as the number of musicians getting rich, for every rock band banging
out gold records and groupies there are probably a hundred or more doing
weddings...
Dan Birchall
...and the percentage of either of those getting rich is probably about
the same as the percentage of people in darn near *any field* getting
rich, artistic or not. ;)
Mxsmanic
8Yqs9.18849$qM2.5392@sccrnsc02...
> You know, I'd say the percentage of photographers
> getting rich is about the same as the number of
> musicians getting rich, for every rock band banging
> out gold records and groupies there are probably a
> hundred or more doing weddings...
Music and photography are both in the category of fine arts.
Mxsmanic
news: slrnar4h7a.21...@kea.danbirchall.com...
> blkhat...@yahoo.com (zeitgeist) wrote:
> ...and the percentage of either of those getting
> rich is probably about the same as the percentage
> of people in darn near *any field* getting
> rich, artistic or not.
Not even remotely true. In the sciences and other "hard" disciplines, it is
_far_ easier to make money than in the fine arts. People _need_ engineers,
plumbers, bricklayers, doctors, and so on--but they do not _need_ musicians,
photographers, painters, or dancers. And so the former professions always
have more job security and higher incomes than the latter professions. The
hard sciences such as engineering and construction come first, followed by
the liberal arts (teaching, for example), followed at quite a distance by
the fine arts: photography, dance, music, painting, sculpture, and so on.
Doug
pictures. I have no doubts people on this planet make money with thier
camera. Some may be millionaires, some may make a couple bucks on the side
while working full time somewhere else. So what? I just wanted to get ideas
from a marketing standpoint what works for others who happened to be so
inclined to offer their services as a photographer. I thank all who
responded with constructive ideas. I usually don't frequent chat rooms or
newsgroups (except to look for good pictures...heh) but I have to say it's
pretty interesting what you flush out in the way of decent people willing to
share and others who must miss the old days of jawing into a CB microphone
trying to ruffle someone's feathers across town. Anyway, Godspeed to all you
good shooters out there.news:SmSdnbpv37C...@giganews.com...
Dan Birchall
> "Dan Birchall" <danbi...@yahoogroups.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news: slrnar4h7a.21...@kea.danbirchall.com...
> > blkhat...@yahoo.com (zeitgeist) wrote:
>
> > ...and the percentage of either of those getting
> > rich is probably about the same as the percentage
> > of people in darn near *any field* getting
> > rich, artistic or not.
>
> Not even remotely true. In the sciences and other "hard" disciplines,
> it is _far_ easier to make money than in the fine arts.
You'd fare better if you actually tried to contradict what I
actually said. ;)
I agree that it is far easier to _make money_ in a lot of fields
than it is in the fine arts.
My assertion was that the percentage of artists who "make it" and
become rich (which means accumulating wealth, not just earning
enough money to pay the bills) is probably about the same as the
percentage of people in any other _field_ that get rich.
> People _need_ engineers, plumbers, bricklayers, doctors,
Some of whom get rich. Many of whom just get by. And then there
are all the entry-level grunts who work with them, carry the
equipment, and so on.
> on--but they do not _need_ musicians, photographers, painters,
> or dancers.
It's not just about need, though. We don't *need* professional
athletes, either.
A judge back in my old stomping grounds actually ruled that
a vocational-technical school shouldn't teach dance, because
it was not a "vocation" - not something one could do to earn
a steady living. (And my wife has a dance degree! ;)
> And so the former professions always have more job security
Ever heard of "at will" employment? Job security is a myth, outside
of tenured research/academia and some government jobs.
zeitgeist
> Not even remotely true. In the sciences and other "hard" disciplines, it
is
> _far_ easier to make money than in the fine arts. People _need_
engineers,
> plumbers, bricklayers, doctors, and so on--but they do not _need_
musicians,
> photographers, painters, or dancers. And so the former professions always
> have more job security and higher incomes than the latter professions.
The
> hard sciences such as engineering and construction come first, followed by
> the liberal arts (teaching, for example), followed at quite a distance by
> the fine arts: photography, dance, music, painting, sculpture, and so on.
>
>
It has been my observation that the most successful photographers, and by
'successful' I'm meaning middle class and not 'rich' as mentioned earlier,
where trained as engineers or other professions, not in the arts.
It seems that there is a strong relationship between one's job history and
their own entrepreneurial experience. Engineers, accountants, lawyers etc
tend to work for large firms that send them out to other businesses and
individuals, billing hundreds of dollars per hour for their time. So they
are used to dealing with those kinds of numbers with people who are used to
paying those kinds of numbers for professional services.
So when you go to a workshop, the front row is nearly always filed with
downsized engineers, when I was in LA in the 60's and 70's, half the folks
introducing themselves would say that they are or were aerospace engineers,
in the 80's and 90's in the bay area most of them were ex HP guys, in fact
once I was the last in a class to stand up and introduce myself by saying,
"Hi, I'm Allen and I never worked for HP," which got a big laugh.
There was a popular small business guru years ago who wrote a book called
the "entrepreneurial myth."
basically he asserts that the average self employed person does not run a
business, they merely give themselves a job. What usually happens is
similar to the noted pattern of abused kids who grow up to be abusers. That
just because you have a particular skill doesn't give the person a system
for running a business based on that skill.
"the average photographer is more likely to be successful if they go into
any other business than photography, most of you (he was giving a talk to a
pro association) would more likely still be in business five years from now
if you started a poodle clipping business than a photo studio. The reason
being is that not having dog grooming skills you are more likely to attend
to the running of the business and managing those who do have the skills
required."
so photogs tend to run their studios like their previous job experiences, or
after their other merchandising experiences, standing at a counter while the
customer brings their selections up to the register.
Engineers and other professionals tend to consult with the client in advance
to ascertain their needs, work up an action plan or previsualize the
project, crunch the numbers or whatever, meet again with the client to see
how things are tracking, complete the project. This translates with a
photographer sitting down with the client to determine what kind of image
they want, style, color scheme, story, and where it will hang, what size
might be needed, then they shoot the session, and then consult over the
results to select the images to be used. This is the major part of the
differences between $50 portrait packages and $5,000 home decor.
this babble is forwarded to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
Mxsmanic
> You'd fare better if you actually tried to
> contradict what I actually said.
That's what I did. When it is easier to make money, it is easier to become
rich.
> My assertion was that the percentage of artists
> who "make it" and become rich (which means
> accumulating wealth, not just earning
> enough money to pay the bills) is probably
> about the same as the percentage of people
> in any other _field_ that get rich.
No, it is consistently smaller in the fine arts, for reasons I have already
stated.
> Some of whom get rich. Many of whom just get
> by. And then there are all the entry-level
> grunts who work with them, carry the equipment,
> and so on.
But in the fine arts, most people cannot even "get by"; they _must_ find
some other type of work to support themselves, and this work must be outside
the fine arts. That's why so many aspiring actors work as waiters.
> It's not just about need, though. We don't
> *need* professional athletes, either.
And that's why it is almost impossible to make money in sports, too.
> A judge back in my old stomping grounds actually
> ruled that a vocational-technical school shouldn't
> teach dance, because it was not a "vocation" - not
> something one could do to earn a steady living.
I agree. A person who learns dance in such a school will end up on welfare,
which contradicts the whole purpose of such schools.
> Ever heard of "at will" employment?
Ever heard of supply and demand?
Mxsmanic
PLAs9.32184$La5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> I have no doubts people on this planet make money
> with thier camera.
Yeah, but both of them are too busy to post here!
Doug
John
> I have started a simple "out of my home" digitial photography business.... >Getting people to pay you to come and take pictures is another. Any ideas would >be appreciated. Thanks. Doug
How photographers loose income. I am not a portrait photog. I have
a kid. I needed a photo of him in an outfit to send to grandparents.
Walmart has a $6.88 deal for one pose w/an assortment of prints. Of
course, it is a come-on and loss leader. But I am strong. I make the
appointment at the 10'x8' 'studio' after buying drain cleaner one
night. Show up Saturday at 10am with Jr. Well worn proprietary camera
with lo res digital and film output, one umbrella strobe, battered
backgrounds, dusty rug, and a nice older woman running the show.
Snap, snap, snap..."Those are the three for the package. Shall I take
a few more to see if you like them, too?" All above-board, no tricks,
no hard sell. Snap x 6 with new poses. I am shown the three package
images on an old color crt driven by an ancient Mac; I chose one.
"Here are the others, if you like them." There he is, "My Boy," the
light of my life. He is so cute. Okay, let's take some of those,
too. New package totals offered are $140 or $110 or 80 or $40, all
named with something like the usual platinum, gold, silver, and econo.
I am strong right? I go Econo. I write the check for $40 + 6.88 +
7.50 (for the images lo res jpeg on a diskette with silly screen saver
software on a cdrom) or about $60 with tax, tag, and title. 10x what
I went into pay. Pictures are formula, but decent and are chemical
prints. 20 min. in/out. Grandma wouldn't know Ms. Bessie from R.
Avedon. Maybe most pros don't really want this shlock, but I paid
1000% more than I anticipated (groaning only slightly), because of
location, location, speed, comfort, and lack of pretension. Pretty
hard to beat that location, but other variables are the ease of making
an appointment, the quick in/out with a 2 yr old, the comfort of not
going to someone's home and being on *their* turf, and the lack of any
haute to the experience (I was going to the feed store next that
Saturday). Whatever. Portraiture has a vocabulary most don't
understand. Sitting fee. Does that include any pictures or is that
just to walk in the door? Proofs. I have to go back 3 times? Snap,
view proofs, pick them up? I am busy. etc. The local middle of the
road kiddie pic guy in private practice would probably only have
charged me $70 for better pics, but I am busy and he isn't on the way
home from buying drain cleaner.
Jack Germsheid
Hilarious!
JustaPawn
I mentioned before taking pet portraits. A local photographer is doing just
that at a local pet store. I was in there the other day and glanced at the
book. Simple dogs mostly on gray background, nothing grand but not terrible.
35mm, a 20 minute session is $40. bucks, color or black and white and the
customer gets one print (scanned, printed on an Epson). Damn, thats cheap I
thought, hardly worth doing. Then I checked the bookings for the coming
Saturday. 16 people had already signed up, and more spaces were available. Hmm,
16 x $40. minus film and processing. Thats a pretty good day rate for dog
pictures!
Pudentane
>
> I don't agree that
> "Taking pictures and making money are almost a contradiction in terms."
> or with the statement
> "that art is something that
> > nobody really needs, so paying for it is extremely discretionary"
>
> There are many people whose life would be severely impoverished without art,
> music and beautiful objects, atmosphere etc
I think his point was "Don't quit your day job!"
--
I do not speak for any government, corporation or organization.
These are MY opinions. No one else is to blame.