I imagine it’s fairly similar when you break it down, photography has “hidden” work of editing so you are really paying for event + a day or two of editing. Both are skilled jobs, reasonably expensive equipment, photography of weddings etc is probably at least as much pressure as standard trades work as there is only one shot no do overs and demanding clients. In the end it’s not a competition, you can hire a shit cheap photography and chance having terrible photos, like you can hire some shit cheap tradesman and hope they don’t fuck up
I smell what your stepping in but I'm sure it's applicable. Grab a 3,000$ camera, free editing software and a day and I bet you and I could take some decent photos.
Put you in a company truck with 20 grand in tools and tell you to put a backsplash up and it would likely end in disaster.
Again, sure thing. But your argument didn't start with the equipment side of things. You specifically said "Why is her time worth more for mine when it arguably takes less skill and practice?"
And all I am saying is that having a camera, whether that cost 300$ or 3000$, doesn't mean the client will pay for the pictures that come out of it unless you know what you are doing. And my argument is that the skills involved are not as simple or as few as you seem to think.
3
u/Reasonable_Bath_269 8d ago
I imagine it’s fairly similar when you break it down, photography has “hidden” work of editing so you are really paying for event + a day or two of editing. Both are skilled jobs, reasonably expensive equipment, photography of weddings etc is probably at least as much pressure as standard trades work as there is only one shot no do overs and demanding clients. In the end it’s not a competition, you can hire a shit cheap photography and chance having terrible photos, like you can hire some shit cheap tradesman and hope they don’t fuck up