My Photography Experience
How should a photographer price an assignment involving only a small number of high-quality photographs? Should the quotation be based on the photographs delivered, the shooting duration or the overall work involved?
Early in my photography career, I accepted an interior photography assignment that seemed promising. The client valued quality over quantity, which suited my approach to photography. However, the assignment eventually required three separate visits, considerably more work than I had anticipated and an unexpected discussion about photo editing. Despite my efforts, the financial outcome was disappointing.
Looking back, I realise that much of the problem came from my own inexperience in pricing and setting boundaries. I'm sharing this story to help clients understand the work behind professional photography and to offer fellow photographers some lessons from my mistakes. Certain details have been generalised to respect the client's privacy.
The client approached me because she wanted high-quality photographs of her property. During our initial discussions, she appeared willing to invest in getting the best possible results, and I was naturally excited about the opportunity. I enjoy working with clients who appreciate good lighting, careful composition and the effort involved in producing professional photographs.
Her enthusiasm also gave me the impression that she might be willing to purchase more photographs if she liked the results. At the time, I mistook her appreciation for quality as a sign of generosity and assumed the assignment could be financially rewarding. I would later discover that these were two very different things.
We agreed on a fixed minimum purchase of photographs, with the option for the client to select and pay for additional images afterwards. I thought this was a fair arrangement because she wouldn't need to purchase photographs she didn't want, while I could potentially earn more if she liked a larger selection.
As the assignment focused on quality, I intended to use a tripod and spend more time refining the composition of each photograph. Unlike a faster handheld approach, this method required careful positioning and adjustments, but I was happy to put in the effort because I wanted the photographs to be part of my portfolio.
Unfortunately, I made an important mistake. Although we agreed on the minimum number of photographs to be purchased, I didn't specify a maximum shooting duration. I also failed to consider how much additional time might be needed for consultation, travelling and preparation. The client's minimum financial commitment was clear, but the amount of work I might have to undertake was not.
Before the actual shoot, I spent considerable time discussing the client's requirements and explaining my approach. Interior photography can involve many considerations beyond camera settings, including furniture arrangement, decorations, reflections and the direction of natural light. These discussions were useful, but they also required time and professional knowledge.
The client subsequently requested a site recce, so I made a separate trip to inspect the property and discuss the photography arrangements in person. I didn't charge for this visit because I saw it as part of providing a good service and establishing a positive working relationship.
In hindsight, I should have considered the costs more carefully. A site recce involves travelling, assessing the location and offering professional advice, even when no photographs are taken. Combined with the earlier discussions, I had already committed a fair amount of time before the actual photography began.
When the photography began, I used a tripod and worked carefully on the composition and sharpness of each photograph. I wasn't trying to rush through the property because I wanted to produce work that both the client and I would be proud of.
However, the client made numerous changes to the rooms throughout the shoot. Furniture and decorations were adjusted repeatedly, and I often had to wait before I could continue photographing. Some changes were useful for improving the appearance of the spaces, but the constant interruptions significantly affected our progress. Instead of moving efficiently from one room to another, we spent a considerable amount of time making adjustments along the way.
Because I hadn't established a shooting-duration limit, I continued accommodating these changes without properly considering their impact on the assignment. The property had many rooms, and the client wanted them photographed so that she could choose her preferred images afterwards, even though she wasn't necessarily going to purchase a photograph of every room.
We were also relying on natural light to maintain a consistent appearance across the photographs. As the day progressed, the available daylight became unsuitable, and we couldn't complete the remaining rooms before sunset. Rather than switching to artificial lighting and risking inconsistent results, we arranged for me to return on another day.
Interestingly, the second photography visit was much shorter. The client was in a hurry to leave, which meant I could work independently on the remaining rooms without having to pause repeatedly for changes or discussions. I was able to concentrate on the photography and move through the spaces more efficiently.
This contrast made me realise just how much the interruptions during the first visit had affected the shooting duration. Altogether, the assignment involved three trips: the unpaid site recce and two photography visits. Although neither shooting visit occupied an entire day, the combined commitment was far greater than I had anticipated when preparing the quotation.
I've explained more about the technical considerations in my article on handheld versus tripod interior photography.
After completing the photography, I prepared the photographs for the client's selection. It was only then that she mentioned some existing imperfections on the walls, including marks left by previous fixtures, and asked me to remove them digitally.
This caught me by surprise because our agreement covered only basic photo editing. Removing existing wall defects would require additional retouching, which hadn't been discussed or included in my quotation. I explained the distinction to her, but she didn't seem pleased with my response.
For my interior photography services, basic editing generally covers adjustments such as exposure, colour and cropping. Advanced retouching involves more substantial changes, such as removing wall damage, concealing unwanted objects or digitally altering parts of a room. Apart from requiring additional work, some alterations may also affect how accurately the photographs represent the property.
My editing policy was already clearly explained on my website, and the agreed service included only basic editing. I had never promised to remove existing property defects at no additional cost. While I understood why the client wanted the imperfections corrected, I felt it was unfair to expect additional retouching work that wasn't included in the quotation.
Eventually, the client purchased only the minimum number of photographs required under our agreement. I was disappointed because I had invested considerable time in the discussions, preparation, travelling and photography, hoping that she would select more images.
Given the timing, I wondered whether our disagreement about retouching had influenced her decision. However, I couldn't know her actual reasons, and she was entitled to purchase only the agreed minimum. The arrangement had always made additional photographs optional.
What troubled me most was the financial outcome. Considering the three visits and the total work involved, I could potentially have earned a similar amount from a much shorter photography assignment. I had put considerable effort into producing high-quality work, but my quotation hadn't adequately accounted for that commitment.
It was a disappointing experience, but it forced me to reconsider how I valued my time and structured my photography packages.
The assignment taught me several lessons that continue to influence how I work today. Most importantly, I learnt that providing a good client experience and protecting my own interests shouldn't be treated as opposing goals.
A quotation should account for the overall work involved, not simply the number of photographs delivered. Consultation, preparation, travelling, site visits, photography and post-production all require time. Although not every activity needs to appear as a separate charge, the total fee should reasonably cover the commitments involved.
I also learnt that complimentary services should be offered deliberately rather than out of an automatic desire to please the client. A free site recce may be worthwhile in some situations, but it shouldn't become an unexpected expense that makes an otherwise reasonable assignment unprofitable.
I used to worry that specifying a shooting duration might make clients feel rushed. However, this experience showed me that an open-ended arrangement can lead to unrealistic expectations, especially when additional changes are made during the shoot.
A reasonable duration helps both parties plan properly. Clients can still request additional time when necessary, but the implications can be discussed rather than leaving the photographer to absorb an unlimited commitment. I've explored this further in Why Real Estate & Interior Photography Takes Longer Than You Think.
One of my biggest mistakes was relying on the possibility of additional photograph purchases to make the assignment financially worthwhile. While offering optional images gives clients flexibility, the minimum agreed fee should already provide fair compensation for the expected work.
Additional purchases should be a welcome bonus, not something the photographer needs in order to justify the original quotation.
I initially interpreted the client's enthusiasm for high-quality photography as a willingness to spend more. However, someone can appreciate excellent work while remaining very conscious of their budget. A client may genuinely prefer a small selection of outstanding photographs rather than purchasing more simply because they're available.
That approach is consistent with my own belief in quality over quantity. The lesson was not that the client should have bought more photographs, but that I should never have based my expectations on purchases she hadn't committed to.
I believe a good photography arrangement should be fair to both parties. Clients deserve clear quotations, professional advice, suitable photographs and an enjoyable experience. Photographers, meanwhile, deserve reasonable compensation for the work and responsibilities they agree to undertake.
Achieving that balance requires clear communication and a shared understanding of the service. In particular, I believe the following points are important:
Agree on the shooting duration, deliverables, editing allowance and any additional charges before confirming the booking.
Clients should raise important concerns about property defects, styling, retouching and deadlines before the shoot whenever possible.
Completing cleaning, decoration and furniture arrangements in advance allows more time for photography.
If additional work or time becomes necessary, both parties should understand the implications before proceeding.
This is why I encourage clients to discuss their needs and review my photography rates and packages before booking. For those looking to manage their expenses, I've also written a guide on how to save money on interior photography without unnecessarily compromising the results.
I won't pretend that this assignment was a pleasant business experience from beginning to end. I was disappointed by how much time I had committed compared with the amount I earned, particularly after making several visits and encountering an unexpected editing request.
Nevertheless, I recognise that the client was entitled to make her own purchasing decisions. My mistake was failing to establish a quotation and working arrangement that adequately protected my time, regardless of how many photographs she eventually selected.
The experience changed how I approached quotations, consultation, shooting duration and the overall time commitment involved in an assignment. My editing policy was already established, but this incident reminded me that even clearly stated terms may not always match a client's expectations. I still want to provide a positive experience and produce photographs that meet my clients' needs, while ensuring that the arrangements remain fair to both parties.
A good photography agreement shouldn't favour the client or the photographer. It should allow both parties to understand their responsibilities, respect each other's time and work towards the best possible results.
I've been sharing photography tips and experiences since 2012. If this article helped you, here are a few ways to show your appreciation.
Buy Me a CoffeeYou can also follow me or share this article with someone who might find it useful.
Browse every portrait, commercial, event and specialist photography service available.
Scan QR to visit this website