I wrote the other day that I used to make good money doing portraits, years ago, but that now I actually have a hard time giving them away. This has persisted for a number of years.
There are also problems associated with trying to do portraits for free. Often, misunderstandings arise. A few examples: in one case I scheduled a senior portrait weeks in advance. The day came, I spent two hours at the shoot, I made a web page of the proofs—at which point the mother said she thought her son should have gotten a haircut first. I sort of mumbled politely to the effect of "well, too late now," but she said, "what's the problem? It's free, so I can get you to do it as many times as I want."
My response:
!
She didn't take into consideration that while it didn't cost her anything, it cost me something in time and effort. And that maybe I didn't want to do multiple shoots of her son again and again until she got tired of my generosity. I mean, they'd had a couple of weeks to get him a haircut. (She was a good friend, so I don't mean to be critical. I'm just pointing out the disparity between our goals in that transaction.)
In another case, aware that I was having communication problems doing this, I put in writing exactly what I would provide. The client insisted that he wanted to pay, so I said that $50, the price of a box of inkjet paper, would cover incidentals. He gave me a crisp $100 bill, then proceeded to make all sorts of demands that were not in the agreement. I wasn't blameless in the bad feelings that ensued; I admit I copped a resentment, because...well, for a lousy hundred bucks, I am not your servant boy. If you want to pay a full fee, then you can boss me around.
Ken Bennett, who I believe is or was a professional photographer (although I didn't ask him before writing this), had this to contribute: "The problem with offering 'free portraits' is the lack of takers—people think there's a catch. The portrait is free but I'll sell you the prints at a high markup. Or some other way of separating you from your money. I helped organize a Help Portrait event for first responders a few years ago and we had a hard time getting anyone to show up for this reason, even with our police and emergency response folks promoting it. No, really, it's free and we send you the photos. Really."
That's what happens to me now. I ask people if I could do a portrait of them, they say yes, I give them my card, and then I never hear from them. No resentment this time; it's absolutely up to them, and they're free to not follow through for whatever reason. I'm fine with that. But it is disappointing. And more importantly, it doesn't work.
Outmoded attitude
Trying to see this from a different perspective: maybe I just have the wrong attitude. I came up in a time when portraiture was a valued product and people paid for it. Because that was the way it used to be. Well, perhaps I'm stuck in that mentality. Even offering portraits for free, my conception of the transaction is that I'm giving away something of value, and that people should be grateful. So maybe that was true from the 1840s up until 30 or so years ago; but maybe it's no longer true.
Another reader left a comment suggesting that I should pay the sitters. That is, hire models. Funny thing is, I gradually became convinced of the same thing a while back. And the truth is, I am getting something out of the exchange; I'm getting to indulge my muse and do what I like, which is make portraits. And I end up with a picture, one that looks the way I want it to look. So why shouldn't I think of it like I'm the one who's getting something out of the transaction? Rather than think of it like I'm doing my sitters a favor. Because that might be an old-fashioned assumption now. One that belongs in the dustbin of history.
Paying people to sit for portraits has one problem, which is that it's out of the ordinary. If people are suspicious, it might strike them as odd. But there's always the trope of models and modeling to fall back on; that's a common part of the culture, and people get it. Making the transaction clean would at least get rid of the problems of working for pay and working for free. I'd be the boss. (Whatever that means.)
I'm going to try it, before the winter's over. In the spirit of experimentation. That's my, er, September resolution. I'll report back to you then.
You can yell at me if I forget, come spring. :-)
Mike
Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Louis McCullagh: "I was in computer sales (very long time ago) and when when I was arranging exhibitions to introduce new product or specialist software, I charged people to come (they got lunch included and coffee etc.). I also rang them the day before to remind them. When people pay it means they are truly interested and will likely turn up. I have seen exhibitions where no one came!
"In photography I gave a 100% free photo shoot and framed 20x16" (image) photo. It was the only time I had to do a reshoot. Basically I was not being paid (it was an auction and the money went to a charity), and the relationship changed. The auction looked as if it was going to end at about $75 (which worried me, as I would have given $75 to avoid the hassle of the shoot), but two people started to bid it up. Normally my rate for the above was $600.
"Another time I offered a free photo session (different circumstances) and stressed that there was no thank-you required, but they got me a $50 voucher anyway. Then I was in the doghouse because I didn't thank them for the voucher. I 100% did not want it. It was like, here is a gift, and then getting a gift back, which in a way reduces the value of the original gift. (That might upset some of you who have no sympathy for my point of view).
"Free is a dangerous concept you need to tiptoe around."
Mike replies: That's a great line, Louis—I will try to remember to steal it. :-)
I mentioned in past post about this subject that when I was a teacher I did portraits for school families and yearbook pictures for seniors for only a nominal fee ($100). I did the portraits outdoors or at the school on weekends or during off-hours.
A surprisingly number of people "forgot" and left me hanging, or cancelled at the very last minute—not infrequently leaving me at the school all set, ready, and waiting for them. It got so bad that I began asking for a $20 reservation fee to schedule an appointment. The fee was refundable only if they gave me 24 hours' notice. A few people complained about this, but it was purely self-defensive. I did have to return a few deposits just to avoid further trouble. But the no-shows went way down. Apparently they really didn't want to waste that deposit. And in one case, it was a family who had a summer home in Bermuda. Human nature can be funny.
Also in a past post, I recounted the experience of negotiating with Richard Avedon's studio for the use of one of his pictures in a magazine article. His conditions were interesting—he would not supply a repro print (the equivalent of a file in those days!); we had to copy the picture from one of his published books, which we got from the library system. And we were required to neither pay him nor offer to pay. As I understood it (I was dealing with his third assistant), the concept was that we couldn't afford his fee but we would be insulting him by offering anything less. Tiptoeing around, indeed.
Calvin Amari: "One problem with your proposed plan and 'Free Portraits' sign is a more fundamental communication problem. Here on Planet Earth the sign would need to say something like 'Free Third-Party Outsourced Selfies.'"
Mike Peters: "This is why I don't photograph people for a fee. It's never enough to deal with their egos, body dysmorphic disorders, lack of taste in clothing, bad grooming, poor posture, etc....
"I do photograph people for organizations that are paying my fee, and that makes it a bit easier as a third party is generally doing the judging.
"If you do want to do this, it's better to charge a huge fee for the shoot to cover your time and the costs of an assistant and a makeup and hair person on set, then use a very good retoucher for the final selects. A friend of mine does that, and is quite successful. It helps to have a bit of a dog and pony show to make the people feel special.
"Additionally, a high fee, one that will make you squirm to quote, will also garner you far more respect than a low fee, or, god forbid, giving it away for free. No one takes a freebee seriously. You come across as desperate and pathetic to those with money, as your friend with the unkempt son has illustrated.
"Paying people to photograph is useful in the beginning to give you a very strong body of work to show to prospective clients. However once you do, you really have to treat yourself, your craft, and the time and money you've invested in gaining your experience to create the portfolio with fees that are commensurate with your skills.
"The sad reality is that most portraits for money are all about flattery. And to my eye, flattery isn't very interesting photographically. Pretty photos of good-looking people are generally dull. No one wants to pay for interesting photos of themselves because they don't understand them.
"Think of it this way: Avedon made interesting photos, and Scavullo made pretty people look prettier. Whichever one you think is a genius will tell you more about where you should be going with this."
[Ed. note: Mike is a gifted people photographer.]
David Saxe: "People's reactions to their portraits can be strange sometimes. I don't do them anymore, but when I did, people either loved them or hated them (and me with it) for reasons that were not entirely clear.
"Centuries ago, I was employed as a medical photographer at a large teaching hospital in Montreal. Due to the lack of teaching, the summers were usually very slow, so I passed the time making free portraits of the other employees who I came into contact with in my day-to-day activities. One of those persons was Joe, who was the cashier at the cafeteria. He had immigrated to Montreal from Russia about ten years earlier. The word was that he had been in a labor camp for six years for insulting some official. He had felt that he had been unjustly dealt with by this person and had voiced his dissatisfaction in a way that got him thrown in jail. Upon his release, his family brought him to Canada.
"One day I asked him if I could take his picture. He was delighted, and came to the studio that afternoon after his shift ended. I liked the portrait, and I gave him a print a few days later and he thanked me for it. From that day on, he would never let me pay for my coffee. When I walked by the cash register with my cup, he would reach into his pocket, pull out fifty cents, and put it in the till. 'It's OK,' he would say.
"This went on for a year. One day as I passed through the line he said that he had shown the photograph to one of his sons. 'My son said you made me look like sh*t,' he said. 'Could you do it over again?'
"I said sure, and suggested he drop by the next day.
"No, right now! Today," he replied, quite forcefully.
"I said I had no time to do it today but I would be happy to do it the next day.
"'Who the hell do you think you are,' he said. 'I have bought you coffee every morning for the past year and how do you repay me? By taking a picture of me that makes me look like sh*t. My dog could take a better picture than you can. Fifty cents, please,' he said, as he held out his hand.
"As I paid for the coffee, I wondered what he had said to that official in Russia so many years ago that would have put him in a labor camp for six years.
"We never spoke again."
Mike replies: Wow, that's a better post than the one I wrote.
Bruce Bordner: "Even before phone cameras, I have been irritated by the 'posing reflex' that so many people have. I sneak up on them to get the shot I want, but they snap around and give me that smile and ruin it...I just feel creepy. Professional models are far better at looking natural if you are doing it for the picture. You should try it soon instead of agonizing over the expense. Just once, as a treat to yourself."
Ed Hawco (partial comment): "Importantly, the selfie has changed the aesthetics of portraiture. For most young people today, 'a photo of me' is a selfie, which generally includes a self-assured smirk and a bit of a duck-face (selfie-talk for the pursed lips that were so ubiquitous in the early days of selfies). Whether it’s a smirk, a duck face, a smiling head toss, or some other affectation [and don't forget the too-wide-angle lens distortions —MJ], that is the 'look' of photographic portraits today, and people can achieve that all by their lonesome."
Albert Smith (partial comment): "More than once I have presented my subject with a hard copy print of at least 8x10 inches just as a 'thank you' for allowing me to take their photo, only to have them look at it with a 'what am I supposed to do with this?' look on their face. Several asked if they could scan it to put online or if I could send them the JPEG. Tangible things don't excite people of a certain age."
AlexV: "I shared the contents of your post with my Japanese wife, and she cited the following saying: 'Tada hodo kowai mono wa nai' ('Nothing is more risky than something that is free.')"
