If she’s even real (could be a troll account), we have no idea what she’s talking about. Quick half hour or shorter shoot for your family after getting a new baby? A wedding lasting hell, maybe 5-6 hours or more? 300 bucks is way too much for the first option (assuming she has a studio and can just shoot 1.5 families an hour and then do the editing later) and probably about a fifth of what the second option should cost.
Comment on business is business
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoThat’s not what she was talking about though.
boonhet@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 weeks ago
It kind of is, but she’s making her argument poorly.
If you want a professional photography shoot, there is a minimal expectation on equipment above whatever your phone can do. That equipment costs significant money to own.
There is also the money to pay for someone’s time for the shoot, which she argues for poorly. Even though photography is a hobby, selling services is a commitment of time to reach a certain minimum standard. That time is worth something.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Ok, but i want a wedding photo, not a Van Gogh.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Then get your friends/family to take pics with their phones, and don’t hire a wedding photographer. No one is forcing you to. Just don’t then go on to complain if the specific moments you want are missed/blurry/composition sucks.
Like, maybe this is a controversial opinion, but of all the people trying to rip you off in the world, photographers are pretty low on the list.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Just have your wedding event near a flock camera and invite the local police chief. Ask if he can download the pics for you after a few drinks.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Nah, phones make too noisy images.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 weeks ago
I wish I could get a Van Gogh for only a few thousand.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I will sell you an nft of one for $2000