I haven't charged a dime for the photos I have taken, simply because I consider myself still in the learning phase of this trade. It's not because I have less talent, but rather higher standards. I've taken some crappy shots over the last few years, every photographer has them. The difference is the final products that you stand behind. If you charge a client ANY sum of money, you should be willing to stake your reputation on the line for the photos you deliver to them. If that means you need to take a ratio of 100:1 just to get a worthy photo, then you do it.
There really is a reason that REAL photographers cost so much money. You pay for their talent, because it does take an eye for what makes a good photo. Some fauxtogs don't bother moving subjects when trees look like they are growing out of a subjects head, and couldn't tell you what composition actually means to a photo. You pay for their time, because traveling to clients is time out of their day and dollars going out of their exhaust pipes getting them to your doorstep. Their time also involves the editing process. Even the best photos need a little color adjusting, so the hours spent on the RAW files need to be accounted for in the final price. You pay for their equipment. That's right, someone has to pay for the equipment. $600 flashes tend to destroy batteries rather quickly, and do you think that money comes out of the photographer's pocket? So now that we have established that you pay for the photographer's talent, time and equipment; Who thinks paying $80 for a 'session' will buy you a professional? Want some examples of what not to do? Head over to YouAreNotaPhotographer.com
And yes, those are "professionals"