Just bought my sportive photos.

Cleat Eastwood

have a look at the sportive photo websites though - they do shed loads of events - running, triathlon, swimming. And I reckon you wouldnt be much of a photographer if sportifing was your only source of income, some of the sites i've seen have been of type 'also available for weedings and barmitzvahs'

Velonutter

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

have a look at the sportive photo websites though - they do shed loads of events - running, triathlon, swimming. And I reckon you wouldnt be much of a photographer if sportifing was your only source of income, some of the sites i've seen have been of type 'also available for weedings and barmitzvahs'

Agree Cleat most photographers get work Friday, Saturday Sunday, so that makes them a reasonable living, but you ain't going to be earning shite loads unless you get a lucky break and then your social life is up the swany every weekend!

izza

tiredofwhiners wrote:

izza wrote:

As stated in my original post some events I've entered have done it. Therefore unequivocally under your burden of proof arrangements I am right. You were correct on one issue - it was, as you say, easy to prove I'm right. I merely read my first post.

Some events have done it - certainly. Enough for folks to work out that it isn't worth doing again. And I'd guess that no event has repeated the offer more than once. One persons experience doesn't make a pattern. And judging by the fact that no large events are currently offering the facility, they have worked out it doesn't work as well.

Hot Chillee have done it for all of its events this year, did it on previous years events and committed to doing it for next years events. So some people have proved it can work. Economics dictate that it will be limited to the bigger events but it can and is done.

Kendal Black Drop

Velonutter wrote:

If you did 20 a year then you'd be lucky to pay yourself £10K a year after you have paid out everything, pretty pathetic wage if you ask me.

£10k a year for 20 long weekends doesn't sound too bad to me. It leaves you plenty of time off where you can do other work.

Pross

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Pross wrote:

EDIT Forgot to allow for however much you have to pay the organiser to be an official photographer but still would have thought it offers a pretty good return.

Try living off that - it won't last long and 1,500 rider events happen two or three times a year. Definitely not something you can live off. There are plenty of things you need including a couple of days editing and cropping, sorting, filtering etc and before you know it ,you've spent five days on one event.

Yes, but how many photographers rely purely on sportives for an income? In many cases I suspect it is just a weekend sideline covering whatever sporting events are in the area and basically a lucrative hobby for people who are not professional photographers. It certainly doesn't take a professional photographer to produce photos like the OP has purchased or that I viewed for the sportive I did recently. As for a couple of days editing / cropping etc. the photos for my sportive were available online the next morning and my daughter has done horse events where they have been available the same day (and in some cases immediately after she finishes via an on site printer). Maybe as a professional with a reputation to maintain you have to put more effort in than a lot of these 'companies' that concentrate on this type of photography?

When you think that a wedding photographer can often only charge around £1000 and has all the hassle of demanding brides (and brides mothers) on the day and then having to agree the proofs / put an album together I would have thought earning a similar amount for a day of stress free photography of overweight blokes in lycra pootling up a 'mountain' would be very attractive!

Pross

Velonutter wrote:

As an ex Semi Pro Photographer, here's my take on it: -

2 Nikon D3 Bodies, say £3500 each How long would these last? Hardly an annual expense
Couple of f200-300 Fast Lenses, minimum of £1000-1500 As above
Annual Servicing Say £300 Per Camera and £150 Per lens
Car, Insurance, Tax, Petrol Highly unlikely that someone would be buying, taxing and insuring a car solely to take photos at sportives. Myabe 50p per mile to cover fuel, wear and tear, servicing etc.
Wages
If a long journey then overnight accommodation
PAYE on your earnings
PLI Insurance, £1500/Year

Plus all the usual trimmings such as premises, web design etc.

And you might if you are lucky make £500-£1500 per sportive.

If you did 20 a year then you'd be lucky to pay yourself £10K a year after you have paid out everything, pretty pathetic wage if you ask me.

Yeah they seem expensive, my Son In Law and I paid £49 for the complete set on CD from our Wild Wales Ride, not too bad when you think of it and the quality is superb. This is often the problem though, many of the photographers I see at these events are probably amateurs doing it as a hobby / extra income and the quality is far from great - my wife takes better photos on her EOS 300D with bog standard lens

For someone to try to make a living solely out of this type of photography may be a struggle but as a sideline it can be pretty lucrative.

Hoopdriver

One thing laymen often overlook is the amount of time you spend in editing and post production - at least you do if you are planning to deliver anything like quality images to the people who are buying them. This can add several days to your overall commitment to an event and time is money - in photography as in everything else. (Admittedly, from the results of most of the photography one sees at these kinds of things, a concern for top-quality images doesn't seem to be a factor.)

As was noted earlier there is a lot of expensive gear to be bought and maintained and while, no, you're not replacing camera bodies and lenses constantly (or hopefully not!) you still do have to factor in wear and tear, the possibility of repairs, and ultimately replacement. Sports photography calls for long, fast lenses - not cheap, not even cheap to rent.

Again, most of the photography one sees coming out of these things is rather crude.

A wanna-be wedding photographer could probably make out doing these things, but if one wanted to hire a genuine pro, let alone one that specialised in sports photography, he or she would want more than events organizers would be willing to pay. And even then, trying to get classy shots of everybody in the field (not knowing who might want to buy) would be a stressful headache that frankly would be a deal breaker. I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it. There's better returns to be had elsewhere.

Velonutter

Pross wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

As an ex Semi Pro Photographer, here's my take on it: -

2 Nikon D3 Bodies, say £3500 each How long would these last? Hardly an annual expenseBudget on a couple of years of heavy use
Couple of f200-300 Fast Lenses, minimum of £1000-1500 As aboveAs above
Annual Servicing Say £300 Per Camera and £150 Per lens And
Car, Insurance, Tax, Petrol Highly unlikely that someone would be buying, taxing and insuring a car solely to take photos at sportives. Myabe 50p per mile to cover fuel, wear and tear, servicing etc. Do you think someone is going to give him a car, most photographers are self employed
Wages
If a long journey then overnight accommodation
PAYE on your earnings
PLI Insurance, £1500/Year

Plus all the usual trimmings such as premises, web design etc.

And you might if you are lucky make £500-£1500 per sportive.

If you did 20 a year then you'd be lucky to pay yourself £10K a year after you have paid out everything, pretty pathetic wage if you ask me.

Yeah they seem expensive, my Son In Law and I paid £49 for the complete set on CD from our Wild Wales Ride, not too bad when you think of it and the quality is superb. This is often the problem though, many of the photographers I see at these events are probably amateurs doing it as a hobby / extra income and the quality is far from great - my wife takes better photos on her EOS 300D with bog standard lens

For someone to try to make a living solely out of this type of photography may be a struggle but as a sideline it can be pretty lucrative.

If it was Lucrative then I would still be doing it as a sideline :roll:

colsoop

A couple of d3's ! A bit extravagant for sportive photography :P

Hoopdriver

colsoop wrote:

A couple of d3's ! A bit extravagant for sportive photography :P

I think that is where this thread goes off in two directions. On the one hand people want pro quality photos (assuming they want any at all) but want to pay amateur prices.

If you are actually doing sports photography a Canon 5D3 is exactly what you want - the autofocus is superb. Better still is the DiX - superb AF at 12 frames per second.

Pross

Hoopdriver wrote:

colsoop wrote:

A couple of d3's ! A bit extravagant for sportive photography :P

I think that is where this thread goes off in two directions. On the one hand people want pro quality photos (assuming they want any at all) but want to pay amateur prices.

If you are actually doing sports photography a Canon 5D3 is exactly what you want - the autofocus is superb. Better still is the DiX - superb AF at 12 frames per second.

I'm not sure people do want pro quality photos though. I've done one sportive (I won't name it). The photos were done by a supposedly specialist photographer but I have seen plenty better taken by rank amateurs. They were available online the next morning so obviously little / no time had been taken in editting them. I would have liked a few for my Facebook pages etc. but they were trying to charge professional rates for amateur product. I suspect that is where those on here have posted went wrong, wanting to do too good a job meant that the margins weren't worthwhile. £7.50 for a digital image of the quality the OP has posted on here is just a rip off. It certainly isn't a dig at anyone on here who has done this sort of event but you can't compete when someone is offering inferior goods at a slightly lower cost - it's the same in my own line of work, people take the cheaper option, get crap that isn't worth the money they paid and we all get tarred with the same brush as the client expects they would have had the same off us for even more money!

Hoopdriver

Pross wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

colsoop wrote:

A couple of d3's ! A bit extravagant for sportive photography :P

I think that is where this thread goes off in two directions. On the one hand people want pro quality photos (assuming they want any at all) but want to pay amateur prices.

If you are actually doing sports photography a Canon 5D3 is exactly what you want - the autofocus is superb. Better still is the DiX - superb AF at 12 frames per second.

I'm not sure people do want pro quality photos though. I've done one sportive (I won't name it). The photos were done by a supposedly specialist photographer but I have seen plenty better taken by rank amateurs. They were available online the next morning so obviously little / no time had been taken in editting them. I would have liked a few for my Facebook pages etc. but they were trying to charge professional rates for amateur product. I suspect that is where those on here have posted went wrong, wanting to do too good a job meant that the margins weren't worthwhile. £7.50 for a digital image of the quality the OP has posted on here is just a rip off. It certainly isn't a dig at anyone on here who has done this sort of event but you can't compete when someone is offering inferior goods at a slightly lower cost - it's the same in my own line of work, people take the cheaper option, get crap that isn't worth the money they paid and we all get tarred with the same brush as the client expects they would have had the same off us for even more money!

Absolutely those are rip-offs. And as you say, it just muddies the field. I don't do events; don't need to and it's just not my thing anyway, but if I did I'd want to be paid for my time and of course would expect to deliver decent images. There are an awful lot of amateurs out there thanks to digital. I have kids in school and the school portraits that are taken there are usually dreadful but priced as though they were taken by Annie Leibowitz. It really bugs me

Pross

Yep, I remember those Olan Mills rip offs that were all the rage about a decade or so back. We got some rubbish done there at the time when our first kid was little. We have since only used decent photographers but the price has been about the same even though the proper photographers spend far more time at it. To be fair I'm not sure how much you can do with sportive photography as it must be hard to compose a photo other than picking a good spot. It seems to almost be a case of rattling off as many shots as possible and hoping some turn out OKish!

jordan_217

Was that the Wiggle Sawtry Sportive?

Hoopdriver

Pross wrote:

Yep, I remember those Olan Mills rip offs that were all the rage about a decade or so back. We got some rubbish done there at the time when our first kid was little. We have since only used decent photographers but the price has been about the same even though the proper photographers spend far more time at it. To be fair I'm not sure how much you can do with sportive photography as it must be hard to compose a photo other than picking a good spot. It seems to almost be a case of rattling off as many shots as possible and hoping some turn out OKish!

Yes, I can't really figure out how you would go about getting good quality shots of each competitor. I was trying to figure that out, having followed this thread, and it is nothing I would care to take on. The stress-reward equation just doesn't work out.