Everyone quarrels in this thread.
Very exciting to read.
Everyone quarrels in this thread.
Very exciting to read.
WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket
It is familiarity of what you used to. Just an example, Sony A99 was indeed a very good camera, but it doesn't fit my usage so I didn't buy it. Money and depreciation is one thing, familiarity is another.
There are a lot of reason why we choose what we buy.
To be honest and being selfish, I should encourage the low charging "photographers" because by itself, it create the "barriers" so people don't want to be in this trade. It is actually a better situation for establish pro.
We try to give our views so people who want to make a living can benefit from it.
Worry about people charging lower is just a waste of time, I would rather use it to advance further. You either have the mindset to be a pro or you don't, but the question is, if you don't have the mindset, can you change to become one? It is a choice and I have made mine by having 2 successful photography company doing a genre people say it isn't possible when I started 5 years ago. It is about having to see the possibility and work darn hard for it. My challenge to you see differently... not about me.
What's the difference between "low-charging" photographers and budget airlines?
always the Light, .... always.
Last edited by s1221ljc; 28th April 2013 at 01:26 PM.
If a budget airline fails completely and you are one of the passengers on the doomed flight that will crash, killing everyone on board - then you do not have to worry about depreciation or small matters like if you spend 50 cents on equipment you must make back 51 cents.
Budget airlines can scale their business from 1 line to 100 lines to 1000 lines and up-sell. Unfortunately, low-charging photographer will not have the leverage to scale their business.
While Budget airlines build on low cost (never low charge) while keep the profit come in, well, the outcome from low-charging photographers is open to everyone's imagination.
Similar concept but very huge different.
Just like someone above mentioned, apples and oranges, cats and dogs, hawkers and contractors, photographers and whatever. While we can take comparisons for references, it will not be wise to totally rely upon such.
Anyway, an airline is a huge profit making industry, with business plans projecting 10 years into the future, assets depreciate at huge figures annually, thus their accountants factor in depreciation a lot more than a singular photographer providing personal services.
So many different ways to float that boat. One can earn money with prudency and realistic plans. One can earn big bucks and be wildly successful like ricohflex that depreciation is so miniscule compared to the big bucks his rolling in that its the last thing on his mind to be bothered with. Ok I have to give in - second last thing on his mind, since his on this thread so much.
Me poor hobbyist.
But that is the type of pro photographer we are talking about. The hugely successful ones who make lots of money. I think no need to name names anymore. Just search for it.
I imagine that those who make a lot of money are not event or wedding photographers. More likely commercial product or fashion magazine photographers who got a steady and growing list of big company clients.
Any businessman is cost conscious and watch the bottom line.
But maybe the successful ones spend their energy on maintaining or expanding their business to earn even more.
Depreciation is a given in any business.
Agree with most things you mentioned HART. I only respect PROS in any business if they can face any competition.
Afraid of any competition, get out of the business.
Photography is well known for its snob and poser attributes, that is why many here are getting hot with rants since it is
now so easy for even the common masses aka dumb hobbyist, to get in on the act.
WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket
In fact, you people are the ones who are worried about new generation photographers learning the paths to a substainable photography business and would say anything to hamper their progress, why, because you prefer them to crash and burn in their first few years so that the ones that really make it into the pro scene are lesser competition to you.
Demons or devils, discerning readers can surely decide for themselves who are putting out good info, who are putting out obstacles and discouragement.
As far as I am concern, I will pay the same rate if a good hobbyist photographer give me the same standard of photographs as a good pro photographer.
A mediocre so called pro should have stayed on being a dumb hobbyist.
I do not understand why people create threads in a forum but get upset when negative comments are made. One should be happy that your thread is one of the most active
here or do you want to be like the king that wore no clothes. We are already being invaded by certain cat aunties. You wait till he or she bring the whole menagerie
here and soon this thread will be move to kopitiam.
In the business jungle outside our club forum here there will be worst comments. Wait till the customer king tell you "Why you make my children look like this or my
wife look like that or even worst why you make my auntie look like a cat and the shop down the road charge me only this much." The comments here will be seen as very
mild in comparison.
The latter operates in a regulated industry where they are subjected to pressure from various authorities, regulators, shareholders and debt holders.
Low cost carriers have a need to maintain certain standards of safety, such as airworthiness of their planes, competencies of their pilots, passing audits and regulatory checks etc.
Low cost carriers are pressured to deliver returns for their shareholders, or, in other words, required to turn a profit. While it is true that many airlines do not record a consistent profit, they at least try. In short, low cost carriers are a business
A "low-charging" photographer, on the other hand, often do not operate in a manner in which he costs his entire cost, which leads to him offering prices which are not sustainable in the long run. However, since he is not in it as a business, he is not subjected to the same pressures as a low cost carrier.
I think TS isn't treating hobbyists fairly by labeling them as 'dumb'. Coz in his initial post it's all about professional photographers who take photos for business, never about hobbyists. Making hobbyists look 'dumb' doesn't necessarily make professional photographers 'smarter', it would only make photography a 'dumb' industry to pursue (both as hobbyist and professionals).
In the first place, hobbyists aren't concerned about depreciation. The reason why they call themselves 'hobbyists' is already because they anticipate depreciation. They know that they can't earn in the photography industry, yet are keen on pursuing their passion for photography, hence deciding to stay on as 'hobbyists' so that they can work in a different profession and pursue photography as a side passion.
Depreciation also doesn't work against hobbyists; it works for hobbyists. Unlike professionals that depend on photos as their rice bowl, hobbyists treasure that sense of 'pride' in acquiring new hardware. Besides taking good shots that they can show off to their friends about this hobby that they have, they can also 'show off' their newest camera hardware. Just like how some of us work our socks off to buy the latest electronic gadgets or latest trending fashion-wear, camera equipment and accessories are the 'pride' of their hard-earned monthly income. So why can't I buy the latest Nikon D4 or Canon 5DMkIII when others can splurge on Samsung Galaxy S4, Asus Zenbook and 4k-resolution TVs? This is something that hobbyists have that professionals lack due to the possibility of depreciation that works against any possible profits.
Lastly, hobbyists are well aware of depreciation more than professionals do. They also have their own 'accounting' to do, like the depreciation accounting mentioned in this thread. In the minds of hobbyists, they are like: "Ok, I have a D7000. D7100 just came out, but not worth buying coz it looks almost the same as the D7000. I shall buy the D600 instead, since many of my friends are also jumping to the FX bandwagon. Which means that I need to work for 2-3 months more to upgrade to D600. Either that or I will skip this D7100 update, wait for the next D7200 update before I upgrade my D7000." Such a consideration does not apply to professional photographers, since cost, durability and versatility comes into play for them.
Think about this: if people are aware that placing money in the bank would lead to depreciation since inflation is higher than the interest rates the banks pay, then why are so many people around the world still placing their money in their banks?
With this, I hope that discussions stay away from hobbyists vs professionals on this topic. Generating more meaningful discussion would require a change of thread title, or TS to declare his intentions of this thread. Else this thread's discussion would misleadingly continue to be about hobbyists and depreciation.
There are some hobbyists who does not care how much they are going to reap in offering their services, not because they are dumb, but because their income doesn't depend on it. Duh.
Dumb, are those photographers whose living depends on photography but cuts their profit margin by offering low or cut-throat prices.
Familiar title & arguments that seem to echo throughout the forum.
A Nice Read & Eye-Catching Thread Title.
Guess it only ruffles the feathers of those who put themselves into the category of 'Hobbyist'.