Ok, here is a great topic that I've always wanted to comment on, but had to have just the right comparison to do so. (By the way, I don't consider the guy who shot the small picture a Schmoe, but it rhymed with Pro)
I always hear, not that I really care, that question; "Why should I pay someone for pictures, when I have a digital camera myself?" Well, it really comes down to personal preference, but the top picture is a shot that Mom doesn't capture from the stands with her D40 or Rebel, with a kit lens. And especially with her "point & shoot".
Look, I never feel guilty about charging $8-10 for a glossy 8x10 when I consider that at any time, I have at least $4K worth of equipment on my monopod and I am working the angles and the set up of shots, spending my day at a hot ball field.
Kids grow up in a blink of an eye and quite often, they also lose interest in the sports of their youth. Sports Illustrated quality shots of that little superstar last forever. I would currently give $100, for shots like this of me, when I was 8,9 10, etc...
There are those parents who just really don't care about this and that is ok. But then there are parents that pay me $200-250 per game to focus on just their kids, and don't blink an eye at the price. They understand that you get what you pay for.
It's a great emotional reward to be invited over to a home to see what they have done with your work.
These are two seperate shots of the Eaton Little League, Marlins. The top one was one I shot in 2008 and the bottom one was shot by a local this past weekend.
Posted by Cincinnati and Dayton Sports Photographer Vincent Rush of Monroe, Ohio. For more information (877) 858-6295
No comments:
Post a Comment