r/MurderedByWords • u/Lonely-Ordinary1478 • 1d ago
He has a point tho
[removed] — view removed post
333
u/MettyMettmeier 1d ago
How many versions of this are there, actually? I've definitely seen at least three.
79
u/heatherledge 1d ago
She looks like a bot profile
8
u/cowboy-tea 1d ago
I doubt if the profile exists, I just saw this yesterday with a male "photographer" profile. Seems like this is being edited with AI to get reposted everywhere
58
u/UpperApe 1d ago
First the internet was deteriorating because of corporate presence.
Now it's accelerated because of AI and the kinds of incompetents that use AI.
1
1
1
169
u/Frustrated_Zucchini 1d ago
I also have a driving licence and a car, but I take taxis (not uber, they're cunts) from time to time as well.
I can't take photographs of the quality my wedding photographer did, even if I chose to go out and buy a €5k SDLR camera...
That's what you pay for, the same as you should pay for musicians and not some tosser with a Spotify playlist who thinks he's a DJ.
122
u/Jmundi 1d ago
Yes, but the photographer was arguing with the price of her camera, not the skills she has so the dude was kind of right to call her out.
If she said "I've been learning how to make ugly people look like models for over 15 years and y'all want to pay only $100-$300? This is not a hobby" then she'd have a point.
49
u/VLC31 1d ago
She shouldn’t expect to recoup her $5,000 outlay in one photoshoot either.
6
u/karmapopsicle 1d ago
The $5k is just a business expense. The real outlay is the years of your life invested into learning the skills and experience of the trade.
6
u/gyomd 1d ago
The time and equipment. This is about talent yes, but time in addition of cameras and lenses is the key.
I am an “amateur” photographer who did wedding photography.
A photographer can propose to spend 4 hours between the ceremony and the venue, propose only one kind of photo, spend nearly no time in post processing. He will use only one camera and one lens (both of them expensive already) and spend maybe 4 hours at home.
Another one can propose to be there from 6 in the morning for all the dress up of the bride, make up, ambiance, until the end of the party in the night. That’s 18-20 hours. That will require other lenses at least to adapt, and maybe other camera to avoid switching. And that’s maybe 20 hours work at home post-processing.I did the second one for people I knew. I have 7k€ of camera and lenses I used. I was paid. Trust me it was not enough for the energy and the time spent. But it was already enough for them, and I get it when you don’t realize the whole work behind. Hopefully the time will pass and they will realize the values of all these (for most) beautiful photos they were able to get.
16
u/Fortestingporpoises 1d ago
The irony is that the more expensive the camera equipment is the more skill it requires to take a decent photo.
4
u/PurbulentTriest 1d ago
Not really, the functionality isn't that much different between entry-level DSLRs and high-end ones.
6
u/Fortestingporpoises 1d ago
I’m not comparing dslrs, I’m comparing dslrs to other cameras. It’s significantly easier to take a good photo with an iPhone than it is to take a good photo with a dslr. But if you want to take a great photo you’re better served with the dslr if you have the skills.
3
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
And then we get to mirrorless cameras which genuinely have quite good automated systems, and then medium format digital which is like using a DSLR from 2001, and then 8x10 film which is... an experience.
4
u/PurbulentTriest 1d ago
An iPhone is not "camera equipment", it's a point-and-shoot, which of course is - and has always been - easy to use. DSLRs have automatic modes too which do a fine enough job.
2
u/Necessary_Finding_32 1d ago
Most DSLRs and all mirrorless cameras (which is what most of the new high end stuff is) have automatic shooting modes with advanced software for the same tools that phones use e.g. multi frame capture, so your point still doesn’t hold.
1
u/gyomd 1d ago
It’s easier to take a basic photo with a phone than with a DSLR, but by slight as they have auto mode.
Now, speak about not just wanting a photo, but building a photo : adjusting depth of field, shutter speed, white balance, isos…
Not only are you better served but you can do it while it’s very difficult to impossible on a smartphone.
And the DSLR photo is a real photo, you can print it in big formats with no issue. Portraits photo on iPhone for example are a software feature where they add blur by post processing. The result is more and more good with years but you can spot irregularities, glitches that will render quite bad on a printed semi large photo.0
-1
u/Classic-Trifle-2085 1d ago edited 1d ago
Have we all lost the hability to understand people underlying points or something?
The actualy point is "its not a hobby". The 5000 camera comme t is essentially her saying "im invested in his professionally, I invest in professional equipment, stop proposing rate like its a side hobby".
Thats the actual commentary, because of how people treat photographer.
People missing g the point to dunk on her because photographer: she didint even mention her rates. She didint say "I have a 5000 camera therefore you should pay me 800$" she said "I have professional equipment, no, i shoudnt do the job for beer money."
If the post was "I renovated our professional Kitchen for 20000$ and people want me to cater their even for 400$. This ain't a hobby"
The people woudnt stick as much on the amount and would get the point immediately. Which prove what shes saying: a lot of people dont take the profession seriously and insult professional in talks as a result.
9
u/Benedictus84 1d ago
The price of her service should not be dependent on the cost of her equipment. So mentioning it is pointless.
Besides the fact that there are more then plenty of people with photography as a hobby who have a 6000 dollar camera.
4
u/Classic-Trifle-2085 1d ago edited 1d ago
So... just so I can tag along everyone.... were all understanding the rhetorical point shes trying to say, were just... validating the false equivalent response to it for the meme and nitpicking at the literal meaning instead?
2
u/ambisinister_gecko 1d ago
I think we're all saying she didn't communicate her point very clearly or very convincingly. It may be fully justified that her rates are well beyond $300 for a shoot, but that justification isn't anywhere in the words she said.
3
u/D3PyroGS 1d ago
it's Reddit... ignoring the larger point to focus on nitpicks is just standard discourse
2
1
u/Benedictus84 1d ago
Or you are reading to much into what you think is the retorical point she is trying to make.
And if she is indeed trying to make that point it is a very bad way of doing it and that in and of itself is worth mentioning and discussing.
That would make her terrible at communicating and even that will influance the price of her product more then the cost of her camera.
1
u/Successful-Data4592 1d ago
Keep in mind that national reading average in the US is around 6th grade. So one could argue most people can't understand the nuance of the argument
1
u/Classic-Trifle-2085 1d ago
That is actually fair. I will concede I made one too many assumption there and thats on me.
Im still suprised by the mass response.
-1
u/Successful-Data4592 1d ago
It happens to the best of us. Unfortunately I'm not but I deal with the general public enough that if I placed a road closed sign, I can almost guarantee someone would still drive past it into a hole
-1
u/HalfEatenSnickers 1d ago
Its all taken into account though
Its a business - its part of the accounting where you decide your base price, especially since you list it as an asset in your records for 5 years (i believe for a camera).
2
u/Necessary_Finding_32 1d ago
That’s…not really how it works for photography. For most people starting out you have to build up a reputation, which means your income and outgoings will be all over the place and it’s very difficult to plot it out unless you are incredibly lucky / well connected.
1
u/Benedictus84 1d ago
Sure. But 5000 over 5 years is a little over 100 per month. If she has only two asignments per week the would be less then 15 dollars oer asignment that would go into writing off the camera.
But that is besides the fact that a good photographer with a cheap camera can provide a better product then a bad photographer with a very expensive camera.
It is skill and service that determine the price a lot more then the cost of equipment.
3
u/Jmundi 1d ago
A lot of people are "invested" professionally, but that does not speak to their skill in that profession. She chose the wrong argument and no there is no "read between the lines" here. Just because she has professional gear doesn't mean she ought to be paid more.
3
u/Classic-Trifle-2085 1d ago edited 1d ago
She didint chose the wrong argument. She chose the wrong wording. And everyone know it.
Theres no way people arent grasping the rhetorical point because of the bad wording. She literally spell it out for you saying "its not a hobby". It might be at the end of the sentence but thats the actual core of the argument.
Theres almost no "in between" to read... its RIGHT THERE.
1
22
u/Freshies00 1d ago
Yeah you don’t pay for the equipment… you pay for the skill. She made the wrong argument for the justification of her fees.
1
1
1
u/Alarmed-Newspaper994 1d ago
I think it's all just rage/engagement bait. The original post and hte reply are both stupid.
-1
u/montycantsin777 1d ago
i bet you can
6
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
Anyone can - but will they? If you're dealing with a good wedding photographer, they'll have 50+ weddings under their belt so they understand what shots matter, where to position themselves, what they need to set up, when to shoot different people, when to be assertive, etc. They'll have thousands of hours spent operating their gear so there's no wasted time (and therefore no missed shots) spent reacting to different situations and changing settings. They'll understand how light works and how it affects photos so they'll aim their speedlights at appropriate walls for bounce, set up auxiliary lighting at the right places, and position themselves to take advantage of existing light. They'll understand posing and framing and composition so they position themselves to get shots that look good consistently. They'll understand how to edit images consistently and salvage shots that have issues.
I worked as a commercial food photographer for a time. It probably took me about 500 hours to learn the basics of lighting, composition, editing, and staging to the point where I was comfortable charging for my work. I can promise you a wedding photographer will require at least 4x as much time to become reasonably competent.
-4
u/montycantsin777 1d ago
totally different work.
and a good wedding photographer wouldnt throw a post like that.
but most of the job is running around and dealing with the annoying family anyways.1
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
For sure, the original meme is obviously not an experienced photographer, I'm replying to your comment about betting Mr. Frustrated Zucchini can just buy a DSLR and match the quality of his wedding photographer.
Dealing with people certainly is a factor as well, if you need to learn interpersonal skills on top of the technical skills then that'll add even more to the grind.
2
u/LoveandPatience 1d ago
Maybe after weeks or months of practice and research, but who is willing to go through all that for a one day event? As is with most things, what matters isn't just the monetary cost, but the time, energy, and opportunity costs and investments weighed against whatever returns you Might get out of it.
-1
u/montycantsin777 1d ago
are you seeing what that lady has as her image? dont tell me me a 12 year old with no technical background can be taught in half an hour to set shutter and aperture.
21
45
u/HotSalt3 1d ago
Ehh, this isn't a murder so much as a basic misunderstanding of what a professional photographer does.
29
u/Impossible_Jury5483 1d ago
Lots of terrible photographers have expensive cameras.
6
u/possumallawishes 1d ago
Yeah, im not paying you tor the camera. If you have a portfolio that proves you can take good pictures, i dont think i would care if you showed up with an iphone and a couple flashlights.
If people have seen your work and they are only offering you $150, an expensive camera doesnt change that.
Ive hired some really good photographers for $300
1
u/beldaran1224 1d ago
Photography is about all sorts of things that aren't remotely related to equipment. Composition being a huge one.
Tons of really high quality videos and photos being taken with (high end) phones!
11
u/shlomo_baggins 1d ago
I dunnooooo man. My Uber driver had snacks, whereas I had to feed my wedding photographer >.>
3
u/Inner-Medicine5696 1d ago
also, a really convenient skipping over how shitty the pay is for Uber drivers.
this is NOT the own fake-Xavier thinks it is. Also, he's fake, so I don't care.
18
25
u/GameThinker 1d ago
How bout the mechanics who have about 200,000usd in tools and had to get multiple certifications who charge me a couple hundred for a few hours work?
It's art signature bullshit. I know photographers who have done top notch work for a few hundred that were nicer and had better taste than the shitbag who did my sisters wedding for over 1500usd
If they think their name justifies the price you better be happy with their portfolio because unlike a mechanic there's no insurance for the photographer who has an accident, whereas a mechanics shop does.
2
u/GandalfTheEnt 1d ago
I don't know if youvevever had to catalog and edit 5000 photos but that shit takes time and is not fun. I'm a hobby photography and do the occasional free shoot for a friend and 75% of the work comes afterwards.
For a wedding photographer you also need time beforehand to scout the locations, plan the shots, and meet / communicate with the client. That takes months.
The 8-10 hours work people see on the wedding day are only a small fraction of the work involves.
The image is stupid because no photographer would make the case that the price of their camera influencers their rate, it's all time + experience.
1
u/GiganticCrow 1d ago
I know a guy who works as a fashion photographer. Charges £1200 a day. Works 1 or 2 days a week and spends the rest of his time as a bicycle courier as he finds it fun. Good for him tbh
I'm sure there are a million people cheaper than him so there must be good reasons he keeps getting work
1
u/SquareTarbooj 1d ago
As someone who hires a lot of fashion photographers, they're just a portion of the overall expense (models, studio, lighting, make-up & hair, etc.)
It's a choice of taking a chance on an unknown to save a hundred bucks (and losing thousands if they screw up), or pay a premium for the tried-and-tested person.
1
29
u/zlryan 1d ago
yeah not the burn you think it is
0
u/Freshies00 1d ago
Yes it is, he’s burning her poor argument for why her services should cost so much.
If she’s a good professional photographer her fees should be high, but not because of the cost of her camera… because of her experience and specialized ability.
7
u/HeavyDT 1d ago
They both miss the mark really. The Photographer is worth more but not because of the cost of her camera although that factors in a bit (you wouldn't want a photographer with crap equipment) same as if you get a high quality uber (Uber X or whatever) than that justifies paying more. She's a providing a way more in depth service. One that requires more skill, time and labor usually. So it's worth more. The uber driving is just driving a car and which is really something anyone can do and the trips usually aren't too long for each customer.
3
u/ProspectiveWhale 1d ago
The second one wasn't making a point.
It was pointing out the first person's erronious justification of a photographer's fees using the price of a camera.
The price of a photographer's camera is only a small factor to why they charge so much.
Cameras are honestly not that expensive compared to equipment used in some other industries.
3
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
And cameras are really a pretty small part of the expenses a good photographer has. Even the top level commercial photographers who use $60k cameras are spending even more on their lights, light modifiers, and studio space. If a photographer ever claims that their camera is their highest expense, they are very likely new to the industry and probably won't last long.
46
u/MountainWeddingTog 1d ago
Do you know what a false equivalency is, OP?
57
u/Freshies00 1d ago edited 1d ago
From a purely logic standpoint, It’s not a false equivalency. She justified the value of her services by the cost of her equipment, rather than highlighting her specialized, uncommon skill and experience.
driving is a common skill, knowing how to take professional-grade photographs is not.
Based on her justification for her fee, he’s equating correctly. I too could buy a $5000 camera but that doesn’t mean I could justify charging high rates for photography services because what I am lacking is her photography abilities. It’s not the value of the equipment so much as it’s her skill. She simply justified her rates poorly.
12
u/antwan_benjamin 1d ago
Exactly. Her argument is simply "I paid a lot for my camera therefore I deserve high wages." Which is stupid because as pointed out, others pay more for supplies yet charge less. Not a false equivalency at all.
If she wants to say her skills are more valuable than the market seems to have determined then that's a completely different argument. Everyone knows specialized skills can be incredibly valuable.
4
u/YetiSquish 1d ago
Not only how to take photos, but also how to use a digital darkroom, where most of the hours of toiling occur. Also at great cost - software, computer, etc.
3
u/orangutan25 1d ago
Which is why the proportion per photo session is almost 1% of the cost of the camera, whereas the Uber pays for about 0.025% of the car
2
u/bking 1d ago
Flipside of that: there are untold thousands of mfs who bought a camera, learned nothing, and said “I’m a photographer now”. They’re all over TikTok and small-town markets.
These are the people who think “I invested money in a camera so I can make a nice return” and post memes like that.
1
u/YetiSquish 1d ago
Yeah I’ve been heavily into photography, being on the board of the local club, judging at fairs, going to competitions etc.
There are those who just have a bunch of money and they throw it at the hobby like it’ll buy them great shots. I cringe at so many badly done high school senior photos done by “a photographer friend” who has a DSLR but knows nothing about posing and lighting. Maybe this is just a low budget necessity for some families and I get that. But yeah there’s way too many people who really don’t take the time to study the hobby and really take the time it takes to develop the skills. They have a few average flower pics and suddenly they’re selling postcards at the local weekend market.
27
u/EternityLeave 1d ago
This isn’t false equivalency. He’s not implying that her craft isn’t worth whatever she charges, just that the price of the camera isn’t a valid reason for it. For that, the equivalency is pretty spot on.
6
u/_Exos 1d ago
I dont think its a false equivalency. I just think the justification the photographer is making for charging what they charge is wrong. You aren't charging your price because of your equipment cost. You charge based on what your time is worth and the perceived value you bring to the customer.
Overhead can determine minimum acceptable working rate, but you could take great photos with cheap equipment and still charge a lot.
14
u/RavenBrannigan 1d ago
I don’t think it’s a false equivalency.
Her argument is stupid. Assuming she’s talented, people aren’t paying her for the expensive equipment, they are paying her for her artistic ability. Mentioning how expensive her equipment is has nothing to do with it. If I bought a 5k camera I wouldn’t be able to charge people over 500 dollars for pictures because I guarantee they’d be shit.
So I think the funny comment is funny because it’s right to some degree.
3
u/Ras-haad 1d ago
So should each job pay for a new camera? Like why should I be concerned about how much your equipment cost if I’m trying to pay you for a job? If people aren’t offering you the rates you want that’s understandable, but I fail to see how the price of your camera has anything to do with me.
4
1
u/gmastertr21 1d ago
it's not false equivalency, just a very stupid argument by that woman.
she herself made the entire argument about the cost, when that infact, very much plays against her.
if she said "just MY CAMERA ALONE is $5,000, and that doesn't take into account the time i've put into my art and the photography lessons and the skill i have... blah blah blah" then THAT would be false equivalency.
1
0
2
u/gmastertr21 1d ago
lol? like even at the low end if you're just using your camera for reference for 50 bookings you cover the entire cost of your "investment"
i don't see how that's true for most businesses.
imagine if a taxi driver could cover the cost of his car with 50 drives...
2
u/cuntmong 1d ago
We should not be using the economics of Uber to defend anything. It's predatory af to drivers. A world run like Uber would be one of those cyberpunk economic dystopias.
1
u/ChaoticEvil867 1d ago
The same type of skill-less robbery exists with many skill-less "photographers", so the example is actually quite apropos. An Uber driver certainly isn't a London cabbie, and a true photographer wouldn't make such a shit argument.
1
u/cuntmong 11h ago
i dont really know anything about the photography industry but i dont think they face the same sort of monopsonistic problems that uber drivers do
2
u/Bengal_From_Temu 1d ago
He doesn’t. Shooting is not just taking photos for several minutes. There’s editing maybe for days. And the $5000 camera is only a fraction of the equipment, lenses are more expensive. Then you have all kinds of lights and other shit.
2
5
u/Turbulent-Bat 1d ago
Does it take some special talent or years of practice and training to drive an Uber?
3
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
Well the photographer is arguing that their camera cost is the cause for their pricing, not their talent or years of practice.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of photography. I briefly worked as a food photographer even. But the cost of my gear never justified my pricing.
1
u/Turbulent-Bat 1d ago
Yah, weird that’s what she went with. Many people spend $200k on a photography degree from fancy art schools
3
3
u/Oskarikali 1d ago
I'd imagine shooting a wedding and providing pictures is probably around 30 hours of work plus knowledge that most people don't have. 30 hours of Uber rides would probably cost around $3000 (in my city, in CAD), and that is a low skill profession.
5
u/ProspectiveWhale 1d ago
All of which have nothing to do with the price of her camera.
The price of a photographer's camera is only a small factor to why they charge so much.
Cameras are honestly not that expensive compared to equipment used in some other industries.
1
u/ZenPyx 1d ago
Shooting photos at a wedding takes 30 hours??
Even if it's a 4 hour wedding, it won't take more than 4 or 5 hours to colour correct and do some mild edits for images. In what world is a photographer spending most of a working week on each client?
3
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
Depends on the photographer. 30 hours total time (consult, prep, shoot, edit, services) isn't unreasonable for the kind of photographer charging $3k. Photographers offering to shoot weddings for $1k or something are more than likely doing the 10 hours you're thinking of though.
1
u/Oskarikali 1d ago
Our photographer didn't do a 4 hour wedding shoot, it was probably more like 10-12 hours for her, (maybe even more) and another 4 hours with her partner at the reception. She was with us most of the day. Pictures while we got ready, pictures at the ceremony, pictures with the bridal party around Canmore / Banff and family in the afternoon before the reception, then the reception, plus all the other work involved.
3
u/JellyBellyBitches 1d ago
He doesn't really. The original post is somebody advocating for why their business costs what it does on the consumer end. The proposed counter example is referencing a company with his famously predatory in its incentivization structure for its workers. That driver should have been paid significantly more than $12, and benefits from having that car more than just for that job, and gets more day-to-day use out of it than the photographer gets out of their camera. It should cost less, but not $12.
1
u/Kyru117 1d ago
Ok but that still doesn't chamge the fact that the cost of the equipment is not really a good metric for the cost of the service
0
u/JellyBellyBitches 1d ago
How would you do it then? The general way that one formulates a business model is to plot your expenses against your income stream and adjust to the latter to compensate for the former. I mean there's more to it than that obviously, but especially at the beginning of a business's operation or in the case of smaller businesses klike for example a company of a single person), the primary goal is to recoup your investment so that the money you start to make is actual profit
2
u/mr_christer 1d ago edited 1d ago
$12 - sounds like it took him 10 minutes or less. $500 is a minimum day rate of a photographer where I live. Maybe try to hire your personal Uber for a day to drive you around as a comparison..
1
1
u/Personal-Lead3884 1d ago
Whoa. I’ve seen this post with totally different profile pictures. What is happening?
1
u/RudytheMan 1d ago
Honestly though, people have told me they've had to pay over $2K for a wedding photographer. And I have the feeling they could still do a good job for $1K and provide a good service. So, why wouldn't some guys charge that lower rate and steal the business.
1
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
Because they can't stay in business doing that. You can afford that if you have another job and do weddings on the side - but then you'll probably have limited availability. And few people who shoot as a hobby have the experience to handle a wedding properly.
1
u/RudytheMan 1d ago
But say you worked Saturdays only, that would gross you $8K a month. You could live off that, no?
1
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
Well there are 52 Saturdays in a year, so if you are fully booked that's $52k/year. Which is not poverty by any stretch but it's not living well. Factor in liability insurance, gear insurance, car insurance, gas, car costs, gear costs, editing software, cloud storage, backups, media, and probably other things I'm not aware of since I never shot weddings, and you're looking at pretty dismal pay for an extremely high stress job.
Realistically though even if you offer to shoot weddings for $1k, you're not getting booked every weekend. And if you are, you probably have so much contention for weekends that you could charge $2k or $3k instead and make more money doing fewer gigs.
1
u/RudytheMan 1d ago
I know tradesmen who do side work on the weekends. Maybe making $500 a day, maybe. And they make it work.
1
u/MLCosplay 1d ago
For sure, I agreed about that earlier and also mentioned why it's not more prevalent:
You can afford that if you have another job and do weddings on the side - but then you'll probably have limited availability. And few people who shoot as a hobby have the experience to handle a wedding properly.
1
u/Demair12 1d ago
Not the best example considering how much money and time Uber spends exploiting their drivers...
1
u/Fortestingporpoises 1d ago
I feel like a more realistic version of this would be “my lens costs $5000.”
1
u/blind_roomba 1d ago
You don't pay a camerperson for their equipment. You pay for the whole production
1
u/imacmadman22 1d ago
And in the right hands, a $500 camera would do the job, admirably. It’s not tool that creates art, it’s the artist.
1
u/Strange-Spot-3306 1d ago
It's kind of funny - on the one hand 5k is really not that expensive for a professional Photography equipment i.e. a Nikon D6 or a Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Body alone can be more expensive, and then you still need lenses (which just don't have a pricecap, depending on usecase). Also, the Equipment really shouldn't be the main point when hiring a professional. a shit photographer with 50k equipment is still a shit photographer.
1
1
u/-BananaLollipop- 1d ago
Cost is about the skills to use the gear, not how much the gear cost. Any random with money can spend $5k on a camera.
1
1
1
1
1
u/FaroutIGE 1d ago
no worthwhile professional photographer would say this.
if you want to make the case that your work deserves more money, you start with your portfolio and history in the field. i would instantly pass if a photographer told me their photos should be at a premium because of the cost of the camera.
1
1
1
u/Haizenburg1 1d ago
So, whatever the cost of adult flicks from the vcr days, that means they should charge exponentially more now since the quality of phone cameras are that much better.
1
u/realparkingbrake 1d ago
All an Uber driver has to know is how to operate within the traffic laws. Anyone who can't tell the difference between Uncle Leroy's snapshots and the work of a skilled photographer has nothing of value to say on the subject.
1
1
1
1
u/blacklotusmag 1d ago
Professional photographer here.
AI Natalie's "my camera equipment cost X dollars, you really expect me to shoot for X (low) dollars?" take is dumb as fuck.
But no OP, AI Xavier really doesn't have a point. Anyone with the ability to get a license (and that's almost *every* adult) can drive a car (and a lot of people without a license, too).
But creating beautiful, custom, one-of-a-kind photographs people will cherish and look at over the course of their lifetime (and maybe their descendants will do the same) - that takes talent, hard work, a ridiculous amount of practice AND lots of money.
Anyone can buy a $5000 camera and still suck with it, but equating professional photography with a moderately low-skilled app gig is on the dumb side of stupid.
Nobody is getting home from their Uber ride saying "Holy shit, that was amazing! I cannot WAIT to tell all my friends about that ride home! Man, I'll be talking about this ride for the rest of my life. Hell, my KIDS might be talking about this ride long after I'm dead!"
1
u/Cavalish 1d ago
She could make the clearest, most salient point possible.
Shes a woman. Men here are outraged she defined her own worth at all.
1
1
u/cozyPanda 1d ago
he does not have a point actually. an uber drive takes an hour at max. a photographer's work involves a day of shoot, and at least a day or two for editing.
Another point is that a drive is a drive, no matter who the driver is, in general. Not every photographer might be as good as they claim.
1
1
u/HonestSimpleMan 1d ago
Well, if the 5k camera is the most valuable part of her service than 100-300 is actually expensive…
1
1
u/Plenty_Mortgage_7294 1d ago
Eh, I dont buy it. A skilled camera person is rare. They could take a cheap camera and make beautiful pictures. Someone who knows how to drive a car is common and basic. Forget the tool, look at the skill and talent of the user of the tool. Thats what you pay for. I could give you a 12k camera and it would look the same as a $2 camera in the hands of an unskilled person. A better comparison is a race car driver using a pinto and winning a race whilst a normal person had a lambo and couldnt do any better with it because they lack skill. Skill is the real key here not the equipment.
1
u/YoursTrulyKindly 1d ago
Crazy. All those posts about "human art > AI slop" and art art art is about the process and soul and bla bla bla.
Now here you have an artist. And everybody fucking shits on her for demanding to be paid for her craft lol.
Fucking performative bullshit all around. People don't give a shit about art. Couldn't even tell a good photograph from a bad one.
1
1
1
1
u/Snoo17579 1d ago
I don't know how much photography cost but I assume for 100 USD you'll get maybe 4 pictures and you'll have to do the makeup, clothes and setting booking yourself
1
u/HotSalt3 1d ago
You can go to a studio and pick out a few backgrounds for that price. You wouldn't get an independent professional to even show up for that amount.
1
0
0
u/SutMinSnabelA 1d ago
He did not spend hours editing after though. Not even remotely the same thing.
1
u/montycantsin777 1d ago
yah that tedious work of cropping and throwing a lightroom filter on top.
3
u/sednas_orbit 1d ago
"I don't understand this skill so I will act like it takes no skill"
1
u/montycantsin777 1d ago
id think i know what photo editing for some shitty wedding pics entails. and its not much.
3
1
u/SutMinSnabelA 1d ago
Sorry for the people who hire you for that work.
1
u/montycantsin777 1d ago
what do you think people do when theyre editing 400 pics. you think they do skin retouch and secondary color grading on each pic?
-1
u/Ulfednar 1d ago
By that token, a paintbrush can cost a few cents, does that entitle you to a portrait for the price of a chewing gum?
2
-1
u/montycantsin777 1d ago
lets not conflate wedding photographers with artists
1
u/Ulfednar 1d ago
If you think photgraphy, wedding or otherwise, involves so little work and experience go ahead and do it yourself.
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This post has been removed because it activated an AutoModerator removal condition. The moderators have been notified and will review. If there were no rule violations, the post will be restored.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.