Hi Ciara!

You’re right. Back when this was written, Adobe CC wasn’t a thing. (You used to be able to shell out $600 and outright own programs individually–a system I sincerely miss, because in addition to being expensive, Adobe’s customer service is hot garbage, lol.) We also used to transfer images with portable hard drives. Online galleries other than Photobucket (ew) weren’t really a big thing back then (at least, not to my knowledge).

Most of the amateurs I worked with were hobbyists who–at most–would have a few lights and backdrops to set up at home. They were the kind of photographers who mostly did shoots for fun and a little extra money. I chose those people intentionally, because they were typically more fun to work with and had no problem delivering.

I would also work with a handful of full-time professional photographers, who were on the complete opposite end of that spectrum. They weren’t doing family sessions and passport photos at Sears and calling themselves pros–they were legit self-employed freelance photographers who did fashion and advertising work as a full-time job. A few of them employed full-time assistants and all had tons of equipment.

But what I’m referring to are those revolving costs. Back then, a photographer could outright buy software. They didn’t have online galleries. So, aside from the expenses we all have to bear as self-employed people (bookkeeping, travel, promotional materials, employees, advertising), an aspiring photographer would be investing several thousand dollars in equipment. Unless that equipment broke or needed repairs (replacement bulbs, for instance), they’d be set.

When you contrast that to a beauty professional, obviously, our product costs never end. Brushes need replacing, product needs to be replenished, and we have to invest in a wide enough range of colors and tools to be able to pull of a ton of different looks.
Nobody requires photographers to go to school or become licensed, whereas beauty professionals must do both.
Nobody requires photographers to take continuing education, whereas beauty professionals are required to (unless they want to lose their license).
Nobody requires photographers to have insurance, whereas most beauty professionals are required to carry professional liability insurance policies (again, unless they want to lose their license).

I think it was easy for some of my photographer friends to write off the expenses of the beauty workers as frivolous, until we showed them our receipts, lol. I think now it’s easier to see, because we have Sephora and Ulta. Now everyone knows the pain of having to pay $38 for a tiny container of brow powder, or $40 for an ounce of foundation. When you’re using a product like that on yourself, it feels like it lasts forever. For home use, you only need one of those things, because your skin tone won’t change. But when you’re using those products on a variety of people, you not only need to stock a variety of shades, you end up replacing them every week or two.

It adds up very fast, and it never stops. None of us can say, “Okay, we have enough hair color, makeup, and nail polishes. We can work with these and save money for the next year,” the way a photographer might be able to with regards to their equipment. Really, that’s the point I was making. Not that their overhead is necessarily zero, just that they tend to have a higher degree of control over their revolving overhead than we do.

As a photog, monthly, I pay 60$ for insurance, 30$ for online gallery delivery, 5$ online backup, 55$ for adobe CC and a handful of other small revolving costs… and that doesn’t even touch continued education, continual equipment investments, etc.

I don’t think any quality photog reaches a point where their overhead would be 0$, especially an amateur building up their skill sets and, most surely, their equipment (again, we’re talking amateurs, who may be getting into newborns, other studio portraiture, weddings, really anything outside of natural light or, like, concert photography (maybe a flash for that??). Sure, there may be some fringe photogs who are dead set with their one camera body and one or two lenses, and was able to outright pay for their editing programs (versus paying monthly), but at the VERY least, they’re paying for insurance and gallery delivery (not sure how super pros deliver images?). Perhaps that’s a lot less than others (like MUAs), but it’s still more than 0$, which probably the root of anyone’s contentious comments. Everything is just so arbitrary, but I understand you mean verrry high TFP work. I also realize everyone’s financial circumstances are different, and would factor into your judgements of what costs photographers have. I would also need to learn more.

Just my thoughts!

But your info has been verrrrry eye opening to learning about what (detailed) costs MUAs, and everyone else, have. And I appreciate how you broke everything down to really explain how to be aware of everyone’s contributions and responsibilities. Thank you!!!

Critical reading is your friend. If you had done more than scan the text to apparently find something to complain about, you’d see the “someone else” in this instance are the companies commissioning ALL OF US (including you, precious photographer) to produce editorial material for them for free. Once again, PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

“I’m not downplaying the value of the photographer. Many photographers spend years in school and thousands in equipment. However, once those initial investments are made their overhead is reduced to $0. Some may argue that their time is worth hundreds and that may be true, however, the majority of the time the ones who are coordinating the shoots are the photographers. Just because they’re willing to take a loss to capture a specific shot doesn’t mean you have to be.”

“You cannot resell or relicense the photos. That right belongs to the photographer alone.”

“What I’m talking about is commercial advertising. If everyone starts working TF for clients, our work no longer has value.”

I also don’t want to have a pissing match here, but I spent 2 years and over $20,000 on my education. My material costs are routine, and they aren’t cheap. Don’t talk to me about how much photographers spend as if they’re the only ones with real costs. You don’t have a clue what other industry professionals invest in their own products, equipment, or education. So take a seat.

It depends on the professional. A lot of them do when they’re doing side work for their own portfolios, but you’ll have to check with them.

Can you be more specific about what information you’re looking for?

I think you’re misunderstanding. This post isn’t just for MUAs, it’s for all beauty professionals who are participating in TF shoots. My statement was this: “…the majority of the time the ones who are coordinating the shoots are the photographers. Just because they’re willing to take a loss to capture a specific shot doesn’t mean you have to be.”

To clarify further, what I mean is that if the photographer has a specific look in mind for their port and is willing to take a loss in order to achieve that shot, no support professional (whether they’re MUAs, stylists, or designers) should feel obligated to also unless they share that photographer’s rabid desire for that image. They shouldn’t be afraid to quote prices if they feel the image isn’t really going to benefit them.

It seems like you’re referencing MUAs in your comment, but when I say that a beauty professional is investing the majority of the product/time investment, I’m talking about people who spend more than a few hours on set. I’m talking about the stylists who color the models’ hair, apply their extensions (which costs major money depending on the hair and application method), and spend hours on set styling the hair for the image.

We’re also likely talking about two different types of photography. In our industry, the hair/beauty work is really over-the-top, generally requiring anywhere from 12-30 hours total of hair, nails, and makeup over the course of several days–color and cut and extensions one day, nail extensions and styling the next, makeup on the morning of the shoot… I’m not referencing typical fashion or studio photography. We’re talking about extreme avant garde fashion/beauty work. The cost for this kind of work, if invoiced to the photographer, could cost upwards of $1,500 per model, so beauty professionals have a right to be very selective about which photographers they do TFP with.

In short, we do agree that photographers do more work than the MUAs, but we definitely do not agree that “all everyone else has to do is show up.” Beauty professionals in fashion do a whole lot more than that. Consulting with the photographer and other TFP partners on the look can take several days alone.