when the client wants all rights to a photo
Today’s post deals with some frequently asked questions regarding pricing commercial photography. Here’s an excerpt from a comment left by Rick D. under random ramblings on pricing photography.
Hey Jim. I was just recently considering some pricing options. Living in LA at the moment, there seems to be an abundance of people willing to work for peanuts.
How does one calculate a reasonable price when freelancing for commercial photography and selling off the rights to a photo(s)? Sure we charge for our time and a final product with limited use, but what about selling off the rights to the photo forever? How much of a premium should we put on this?
  |
If you’ve read the comments you’ve also seen some valuable advice from Dan Heller, a man that has spent a great deal of time writing about this very subject. Dan is an expert on the industry and the photographic marketplace (and has written a number of books on the subject
Let’s go ahead and let the cat right out of the bag: I don’t know any simple, magical formulas for pricing. It’s taken me years of working for other photographers, working for myself and ongoing education and professional networking in order to develop my own methods. What I can do, though, is try and explain how I approach determining value. This involves figuring out just what the client is asking for, what they really need, what they’re willing to spend and what value I feel the image holds. To do this means we’ll be asking a number of questions.
Today we’ll try to determine what the client is asking for and what they really need. A key for you, the photographer, is to understand that additional rights and usage you license for your photography does provide value to the client, value that deserves to be compensated.
Rick already understands this, he knows that the client is receiving more value when they get more use of the images. But he probably has a client (like many of us do) that says “they want to own the photos and they don’t want to be bothered with licensing or usage”. The client wants to be free to use the images however they want, whenever they want. I understand their desire but now is the time to ask questions.
What does selling “all rights” mean? Selling all rights means I’m handing them the image and walking away. I no longer have any rights to that image for any use. For the vast majority of clients this will cost them a whole lot of money that they probably don’t want to spend. But if they really want to spend the money to “own the photographs”, we can come up with a price. What they really need can most likely be obtained more economically by granting more limited usage rights, I tell them. Would they like to save some money?
They’re probably becoming open to alternatives so let’s offer them a baby step. Let’s throw in the possibility of “unlimited usage” on the image. That means we still maintain ownership of the image but they can use it for whatever they want. Unlimited usage still carries a hefty price tag.
“So, you’ll be running this photo on the side of a taxi cab in Istanbul?”, I ask them. “And it will be in a newspaper ad in Asia?”.
“Uhhhh, no”, they respond. I then explain that I have to build that into the price for “all rights” and unlimited usage. My job is to consider every possible unlimited use for that photograph and build it into the price up front, since that’s what they’re telling me they want and need. At this point they’re beginning to understand that the photograph has increased value for each of the different ways it can be used.
“What do you think you’ll be using it for, then?”, I ask.
The response is usually something like, “well, we really only need it for the website and a brochure”.
“That’s going to be a whole lot more affordable than unlimited usage and it seems to be all you really need”, I acknowledge. “How about I give you a price for website and brochure use?”. In addition to where the image will be used, we’ll also set a time limit for the usage and the geographic area where it will be used. This affects pricing, also.
How much value does each additional use add? That depends on some different factors. Next Wednesday we’ll look at the next step, the fact that all clients aren’t created equal. Are they an international corporation selling consumer products or a small, local manufacturer selling business to business? By asking more questions we can get another step closer to determining value.
| Links |
|
* The videos and articles on prophotolife.com are funded through affiliate relationships with quality companies like Amazon.com and Calumet Photo. When you make a purchase from one of these vendors using a link on this site it puts a small percentage of that sale back into our operational fund (and for that we're thankful).
Hi
Interesting article. I must say that the business side of photography, to me at least, is far more confusing than the technical side!
I’ve had a few inquiries about doing some headshots (corporate type shots) and asked how much it would be. I’ve never charged upon until now because I’ve only shot for close friends.
My first question is what do you need the shot for? (website, brochure, print, resume etc). The response is usually, website and maybe a print and possibly a brochure. So here is where I get confused. I don’t want to complicate things for them by saying each use will be a different price etc. Is there a standard type of package for this type of work? I see some sites offering things like 50 photos with 3 retouched on DVD for unlimited use at print quality all for a fixed price. Seems simple and easy to sell that kind of deal. At the same time I don’t want to undervalue my work.
When you talk about different uses, does this apply more to other type of clients like magazines, newspapers, advertising etc rather than say a simple headshot type job?
Cheers
Let me first say the site is awesome for beginners and anyone looking to improve their idea base. Kudos. Now to the topic of pricing. It’s 2008. The economy is falling apart and like someone else said, they’re a lot of schleps out there willing to take “pictures,” for little or nothing. Photography and picture taking are obviously 2 very different things, but in this economic climate, the latter is often “good enough.” So therein lies the rub. Do I price myself out of some of the market, or do I compromise and try to fall somewhere in the middle. I try to get in the middle. I am a pretty good photographer, but I don’t want to miss business that is on a budget they cannot budge. I have fairly good regular clients that if I asked them what will you use this for, and where, and when, and how long, they would find that annoying and unacceptable more so because they aren’t readily sure where the hell it’s going at the time. I don’t knock the formula, I just think in 2008 you have to simplify things and perhaps FOR SOME THINGS, just charge for your time and get a regular check. Just my .02
My take on it would depend on what kind of shot it was, because that would determine the possible earnings I could make from the rights that I keep to myself. Could I sell the same shot to a travel magazine? Am I planning to add it to a future book? Or is it “this year’s version” of a series of frequently updated items? What more could I reasonably make of this shot? Granting the unlimited use for a price up-front could actually be a much better deal, even without asking a fortune for it. It is a gamble both ways, however: if the client “goes over big” tomorrow and your picture makes it wordlwide, you will have drawn the shorter stick. But all the other clients will happily pay a bit “too much” to avoid the licensing hassle, and maybe you should gladly accept?
The market you operate in determines some boundaries. For instance, a royalty-free stock image may cost them no more than $75 - for now and eternity. Only a fraction of this goes to the photographer.
I would possibly hesitate to transfer the rights completely, too. But to grant a non-exclusive, non-transferable license for unlimited use (if time and expenses are already paid for, with a healthy margin) would probably not add much to the price tag for me. I’ve made my profit, I’ll move on! Administering an extra license may not be worth the hassle anyway. My picture is not the only source of value for the client’s enterprise, so why would I want a cut of everything?
Forgive my ignorance but why try so hard to talk the client out of spending more money? This is not a rhetorical question! I’m slowly edging into commercial photography (assisting and small jobs) and the answer isn’t immediately obvious to me. Of course giving up the rights to your work seems like a bad idea but if they think they want unlimited usage instead why try to change their minds? Or is it just that when you explain how much and why it’s gonna cost them they change their minds?!
I am looking forward to the follow-on to this as I have begun doing more commercial photography. I am an amateur that is making a little money for my work. Thanks.
Interesting topic. I am a regular reader of this blog due to the topic of image licensing vs. selling….in a roundabout way. I needed a photo of myself for promotional purposes for my profession (website, marketing, etc.) and called a commercial studio to schedule a shoot. I was presented with the option of liscensing the image(s) for a period of time. I asked about purchasing the rights to the images and was quoted something like $2,500(U.S.). I distinctly remember hitting the roof and walking out…furious at such an assertion. I was not and am not a commercial photographer and do not pretend to be knowledgeable about the historical and customary practices of the commercial photography industry. I do know that that particular experience was very visceral and evoked the thought of such words as: money-grubbing, snake in the grass, scheister …and other not-so-good associations. Keep in mind, and I’ll reiterate, my background is not from commercial photography. The reason that I even dare to post on this exellent blog (that I read via bloglines daily) is to share my experience and feelings as the CUSTOMER and how I became first aware of image licensing and what a bad taste it left in my mouth. I said earlier that I read this post because of that experience. Let me tell you what happened after my experience with that particular commercial photographer last December. I walked out, went to my local Best Buy, bought a Nikon D80, bought Scott Kelby’s digital photography books 1 &2 …stayed up an entire weekend reading about the fantastic science and art that is photography….fell in love with photography and have been a serious enthusiast ever since. I purchased my DSLR out of anger and frustration and the more I learned…the more I fell in love with photography. I bought some lighting, backdrops and took my own promotional photos for less than what it would have cost to buy them. I should almost thank that commercial photographer. I personally think that if you are a skilled photographer, you should command top dollar for your work…whatever the market will pay. But, the whole idea of someone paying you to create something for them and then putting them on a lease just makes me cringe at the thought. I do understand how this might work for a large corporation and I understand how it can help even out the income of a photography studio to have a few dozen or even a few hundred clients on lease payment schedule…renewals and so forth, but to go that route with the little guy just made me sick. Again, I’m am not asserting that my way of thinking is right or wrong. I have not the experience in the photography business to make a claim either way. I just though that it might be valuable for you guys…professional photographers to hear an point of view from someone who was a customer and how the topic made me (the client) feel.
em p dee, that’s a great (and obvious) question: “why talk the client out of unlimited usage”? There was a time when those words resulted in dollar figures that only a large multi-national corporation would be willing to pay. But the market is changing, as the comments above reveal (valuable comments, all).
A little historic perspective, which Bob and F Stop have pointed to, above. The market is tough, budgets are tight and photos that are “just good enough” are increasingly becoming acceptable. The negotiation method I’ve discussed above has taken a hit in these days of digital photography, because images are distributed so freely and with little ties. Plus, we’re creating images for all kinds of different people, it’s not just being funneled through advertising agencies that understand rights and usage already.
My hope is that, if you’re just beginning to put value on your photography, you understand the points and principles I’ve made in the post. My hope is that photographers aren’t entering the business looking at photography as a commodity and something that is easily given away. If only one thing is taken away from the above, I would want it to be the understanding that pricing is a negotiation.
Bob and F Stop have shared the reality of much of the current market and they’re right on with their points and perspectives. It sounds to me like they are seriously considering value when it comes to working with clients and setting appropriate prices for the reality of their market. I also feel pretty confident that they’ve done their homework to get to that point. I consider what’s written above to be part of the homework of becoming a commercial photographer.
Sometimes a post is just the catalyst for discussion and this is a good example. The more realities and perspectives we hear from more working photographers, the more we all will benefit.
Wow, Toby, that’s an amazing story, thanks for writing in. And welcome to the world of photography!
You’ve illustrated that we have to try and put ourselves in the client’s shoes. A big point is that we’re trying to help the client, working together to solve a problem and the transaction must be mutually beneficial.
Hi Jim,
First, I’d like to say your site is great, as are your youtube videos. I’ve sent a couple aspiring photogs to your videos and have heard back that they are helpful.
First off, I’m a graphic designer/art director and do some shooting in support of my own design projects as well as some editorial photography for a magazine that the company owns. I also routinely work with other commercial photographers, depending on the project.
The whole idea of the photographer owning the rights to images that someone else provided the opportunity to make seems a bit fishy to me. If a client comes to you with, for example, an all-expenses paid shoot (travel and expenses, reimbursable marked-up material, hourly rate including planning and file prep and possibly retouching), how does a photographer have a right to dictate how those images are used? They provided you with the opportunity to make the photos. You would not have the photos without the job they gave you. You made a good amount of money on the job.
At this point in time, myself as well as the commercial photographers I mentioned work on the time/expenses model, because this is what clients desire. Not to mention that it is a superior business model. When they receive and invoice, clients understand the time and effort it takes to make an image and the value associated with it. Photographers like yourself with extensive capital costs (studio space, assistants, lighting, etc, etc), will obviously charge much more than an event photographer, per-hour, and rightly so.
I guess I have a bad taste in my mouth for the whole thing because I’ve encountered commercial photographers that provide poorly executed images and expect payment not commensurate with that-this happens when compensation is not based on value but arbitrary protectionism.
There are photographers out there that are so uniquely talented that they provide a special image that cannot be obtained by anyone else. Those folks, by all means, should charge as much as the market will bear, including rights management plans if they can. But for the vast majority of us and the work that puts bread on the table, I’m afraid that commercial photography really is a product like any other. Once we accept this, we’ll realize we’re shooting and designing more and wheeling and dealing less.
Thanks, Kris, for the perspective and thanks for sending photographers this way, I’m glad the videos have been a help. It’s good to hear from someone who is both a photographer and in the position of purchasing photography.
For some of our industrial clients the potential uses of an assignment are limited and we try to value that accordingly. We can roll usage into the creation fee and it looks pretty seamless to them.
Other clients may be using our images on billboards, tv, magazine, newspaper, point of purchase and brochures. The success of (and continued use of) certain images results in everyone making more money: the client, the tv stations, magazines, and printers all get paid more for ad buys / impressions when the campaign is a success. It seems to me that, in these cases, the photographer has played a part in this success and the addtional exposure of the images deserve to be rewarded. I think it’s important for photographers to at least understand this concept, whether they utilize it or not.
I look forward to next week to discuss that all clients aren’t created equal. And, unfortunately, you’ve mentioned that all photographers aren’t created equal. I’m sorry to hear you’ve had bad experiences with photographers but I guess that’s also job security for those of us that try harder.
You’re are discovering the KEY to the marketing of photography in todays economy and business climate. What the market will bear is overly simplistic. Suffice to say common sense and KNOWING your skill level AND how it compares to what is readily available in your market, is the common sense way to pricing your work. For me, I find my clients far more willing to pay extra for my time than to sit and decide where and what the image is being used for etc and so on. I’m not the cheapest photographer in town by any means and not the most expensive either. What works best for me is knowing my client base extremely well. I know their budget issues, I know them personally, and maybe the best part is they know ME and the work I can do. So charging a little more than the average joe isn’t a problem for most of them. On the other hand, depending on the work, if you can turn licensee rights into revenue at any level, by all means get it. Just remember if the phone doesn’t ring back for the job, it may be because someone like me is doing the work they expect without all the various options. Use your head, your common sense, and whatever advice you can get from all your sources that work for you and have fun.
Hi Jim,
When you say that photographers can’t “publish” without consent any more than the client can sell without consent, please define publish. For example, if I shot a wedding or shot headshots, do I have to get permission to show those as promos on my website or flyers? Is that cousidered “publishing” since I didn’t sell the images to anyone, I just used them for myself? And does that vary from state to state, or is it a federal thing?
I’d really appreciate your response. And, again, thanks for a great site from which to learn. I’ve learned so much from your tutorials. I just started teathering and can’t believe I ever had a shoot without it.
Jerry
If you are dealing with an ad agency and in the “Big Time” arena of commercial photography for major multi-national clients, then I’m sure that leasing images is par for the course and all of the involved participants in that upper tier of the industry are accustomed to that model, as mentioned by Mr. Talkington. If you’ve got it like that then Kudos and keep rolling. However, it’s when that approach is tried (in a bad way)like a shoe-horn without forethought on smaller businesses which aren’t at all accustomed to this sort of thing that things begin to potentially get out of hand. As a business owner it’s kind of like me going to Staples to buy some office supplies and the clerk asking me what I’m going to using the copier paper for. If I’m just going to print out excel or word documents it’s $5.00 but if I’m going to print brochures or other marketing material with it then it’s $15.00. That would be enough to make me leave all my items at the counter and go to Office Depot instead. But wait, it gets worse. Then the clerk would say, “…and if those brochures are being produced more than 6 months from todays date, you’ll have to cough up some more money to lease the ability to use them for another 6 months because technically WE still own that paper…we are just granting you the ability to USE it for 6 months.” Maybe it’s just me, but I think this tactic is just a little bit much if it is attempted on clients that are not big players who would not expect such a thing. To each his own and if you can get away with it, great. i think you have to be prepared as a photographer, if you wish to use this approach with small business owners, to be o.k. with walk-aways. I think, too, that K Kathman is correct in that there are “industry star” photographers and firms that have very unique looks and creative cutting edge ideas that a large client must have to push the creative envelope. These guys are hired because no one else can deliver what they do. They are essentially rock stars in the photography and advertising world. I think that they are uniquely positioned to lease their work due to the law of scarecity. It seems to me that the water gets a little murky when trying to be “like” these guys and employing those tactics without assessing who your client base is and what your “star power” is in your local market. Also, one thing to note about dealing with small business clients as opposed to dealing with large corporations: When proposing a licensing deal to a larger corporation, that corporation has a larger budget for advertising and the ad department has a predetermined annual amount of money to spend for these sorts of things. Meaning that the ad dept. will be cutting the check and are already guaranteed X amount of money at their disposal to spend on behalf of the corporation for this type of stuff. The real point of interest is that the money being spent is by the director of advertising, not the owner. On the other hand, with a smaller business, there will likely not be a separate advertising department. You will be dealing with the owner and when you bring up liscencing I (the owner) will be the one writing the check. It may sound like merely a technicality but trust me, it makes a big, big difference. Just some more food for thought. Sorry for the long posts. I’ll shut up now.
Toby, no problem on the long posts (at least for me). I appreciate you taking the time. Same for F Stop, thanks for your explanation, it’s valuable. We’re all in the same boat. Your last statement hit it right on the head: “Use your head, your common sense, and whatever advice you can get from all your sources that work for you and have fun.”
Jerry, I use the word “publish” as reproducing the images anywhere (print, web, etc.). The short answer is you own the copyright to your photographs so, at the top level, you have the right to publish them. BUT if the photos contain people or property then you may need their permission, also. For commercial use you need their permission, for editorial use, no. Where do self-promotion and advertising for your business fall?
We don’t take any chances. Everyone that is photographed by our studio signs a model release after the shoot so we’re okay with publishing things like headshot images. Wedding photographers generally use contracts that permit such promotional uses by the photographer. It’s nice to have it in writing so there aren’t possible debates later. I hope this helps.
Hi Jerry
Yes, you do have to have a written permission if you are going to publish those photos. even if you are just showing those photos in your website just as a promotional shots. Talent/Model Release form is what you need from subject/person you shot, this is what protects all photographers from the law. Back in the old film days, photograhic lab usually ask the photographer to show them their talent/model release form or else they are not going to print your photos as because they will be in trouble as well. So if you have any shot that you don’t have any written permission to publish or you dont have any rights of the photo, those photos are just a collection of photographs just for you to look at. Especially for minors (under 18 or 21 years of age in some countries) you need their parents/guardian to sign the form. I myself got a Bachelor degree in Photography here in Australia, and the first thing we learn wasn’t about using a camera, but to understand all of this. hope this has been a help.
William
taxi cabs in istanbul don’t have pictures on the side, so they can’t anyway:) i hope everything is going well with you jim, thank you for keeping us informed!
Sasha, you’re alive! I want to interview you about “making it in NYC”. I know it’s early but I hope the move is working out well for you. Let me know if anything brings you back to Cincinnati.
I am new here, but I really like your site and your excellent videos Jim!
There is some interesting discussion here, but some of it bothers me. Toby made an analogy to an office supply store. I think a more apropos analogy would be to say, Blockbusters, and a movie, as opposed to printing materials. The film is someone’s intellectual property. When you rent, or even purchase the video, you do not own the film. You own the dvd and do not have a right to copy it or even show it to a group (there’s a number which I don’t recall). Theaters pay big bucks to do so.
A photo is the intellectual property of the photographer. K Kathmann expressed some feelings that I know are prevalent, but unfounded, and sort of puzzling from a designer. When you “provide the opportunity” to a photographer to shoot photos, you are hiring him or her to create something. Your expense-paid trip is the cost of having the photos shot. But the product that the photog produces is his/her property unless he/she expressly relinquishes those rights. That is the copyright law of, at least the United States. (I can only speak to the US). Now you may indeed work out some contractual language that does cause the photog’s rights to be transferred to you, but unless you do they remain with him or her.
None of this has anything to do really with being flexible to the situation and realistic about given circumstances. It’s up to the photographer and the client what the arrangements are. But I don’t think a photographer ever has to sign away their rights to their own intellectual property. We’ve all heard the stories about 50-era musicians having made a couple of hundred dollars on songs that they wrote that went on to make someone else millions. The same principle applies here.
Adrien
Jim… 1st of all, great site and I would like to thank you for taking the time to produce all of the videos that you have done (and continue to do?) I’m relatively new (again) to photography - used to shoot in the Navy but that was over 20 years ago and didn’t really touch a camera until just the last year or so. So… things have changed “a little” between then and now… ! lol!!
2nd - you’re based out of the Cinci area? Ouch… Pittsburgh Steelers fan here - sorry to hear about your plight! lol!!
I don’t really have anything to add to this thread - I just read through it and found it to be both informative and useful. I just got way down here to the end and saw that I could post - so that’s what I’m doing!
Anyway… thanks again. I’ll be around.
-=- jd -=-
Adrien, the movie that is being licensed is the product of the film studio that financed and created it (created the opportunity for it to be made), and they are the ones that have the rights to the film and distribute it as they see fit and collect those royalties. Now of course the film industry folks have very strong union support and are able to get a portion of those royalties from the studio. But they are taking a portion of an actual manufactured product that is making money. I don’t think you can say that making a photograph that communicates the message of a marketing campaign has the same intrinsic value. I think graphic designers realize this better than anybody.
On the other hand, if you took a photograph that is itself desirable as a product, then I agree that the photographer can and should have a part of the wealth created by it (like Adrien’s musician example). I can think of numerous examples of this in magazine and book photography, but very rarely in promotion and advertising.
I agree with what others have said, that if you’re able to charge royalties, by all means do so. It shows that your work is in demand and people are willing to pay for it. What I disagree with is telling beginning photographers that any work they create deserves this treatment. I think a better thing to shoot for is to get the work you can get, give the client much leeway, but don’t physically sign away your rights. If you see your client making money directly off your image you have some recourse. I’d bet though that a photo of a widget or a headshot of your local real-estate agent or high school senior will never qualify for such recourse, and in such situations most photographers are better off letting the client do what they want with the images and focusing on charging for time and expenses.
I guess it comes down to the nature of the subject, the client and it’s intended use. When I wrote my previous comment, I was coming at it from the perspective of someone in the advertising and promotion arena. In this area I just can’t see how a photographer can justify royalties most of the time. Perhaps someone shooting for a magazine or book where the photos ARE the product can justify royalties. I hope Jim touches on this in his article on clients.
A couple quick ones:
Adrien, thanks for the argument for intellectual property. And it’s not a totally foreign concept to our clients, they all pay licensing fees when purchasing Microsoft Office or Quickbooks for their computers. Just having a software disk in hand doesn’t mean it can be loaded anywhere and everywhere. Want to install the software on additional machines? They purchase additional or unlimited licenses, priced accordingly.
Go Stillers! Jim (too), I grew up in West Virginia not far from Pittsburgh. I watch (or listen to) the five-time World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers every week. It makes me the odd man out here in Cincinnati but I can honestly say I’m one of the happier football fans in the city. Welcome…
I want to thank everyone that’s been part of this exchange, I think it’s extremely valuable for any aspiring professional photographer to read. They rarely get to hear the concerns from so many perspectives but these are the issues we all face daily. It would be great to take this show on the road to some photo schools, hopefully some students are tuning in.
Thanks K Kathmann, I think you have pointed out where my movie analogy breaks down. Some entity does however hold the copyright to it. In the case of a photo, an individual does create it, unless that individual relinquishes the right to be that entity. That was my point. Unless someone agrees to that arrangement, the creator is, by default, the copyright holder. I think we can all agree that as photographers, we need to be flexible and creative, depending upon the situation. For actor headshots, for example, I normally give them the right to use it forever, knowing that it has a specific and limited purpose anyway. But I keep the copyright
That’s usually just noise to them.
Adrien
Good points made by all. I like the responses from this post. It helps bring a broader and better vision of what is clearly not a cut and dry topic. It’s nice to be aware of all the different points of view. It helps to guage where my vies falls in the grand mix.
Touche Jim, with the software analogy. We all license the software that we “buy”. I would, however use K Kathman’s argument that the software companies, not us the clients, paid to have that product made and can therefore choose to distribute it however they see fit. As does the movie industry where the movie studio paid to have that product made, not us or even the director. The director who shot the film collected his pay and turned it over to the client….the movie studio…the guys who bankrolled the whole job. I would like to see a movie director tell the studios that they can “use” the movie for a certain length of time but that since he shot the film, the intellectual property belongs to him/her. If, on the other hand, a photographer chose to shoot some micro-stock and put it on, let’s say, istockphoto for the purpose of financial gain, then since the photographer is the one commissioning the art then he/she absolutely should have sole discression over it’s distribution methods.
On another note, having learned many valuable nuggets of information from this blog and Jim, I was wondering, Jim, do you frequently use light meters in your studio & location shoots? I have not purchased a light meter yet. The reason I am interested in doing so now is I’d like to cut down the amount of time it takes to get exposures dialed in. The amount of time it takes me is a minor inconvenience but I would really like some improvement in that area. Sorry to post this question on this thread. Let me know if there is a more appropriate place to ask a question like this. I think I have seen (many times) most if not all of your videos. Have you done any on your methods of light metering?
I’m smiling right now because this could go on forever…and it does…and that’s why it’s not a cut-and-dried topic.
Just one mention and a perspective: I’m not super-familiar with the motion picture industry and directors but, as Adrien said, they don’t just get a paycheck and it’s done. They get paid a fixed amount no matter what the movie does but they also negotiate for “points”. If the movie is successful then they share in a percentage of the distributor’s adjusted gross. If the movie is licensed for television then the directors, actors and writers all share in the residuals. The same goes in the music industry, the writers and musicians get paid when their song is played, in addition to the creative fee.
Here’s where it gets complicated: we recognize the above people as artists. Are advertising photographers artists? Or are we blue collar tradesmen? Some clients treat us like artists, some view as as plumbers there to fix a leak. My studio works for a mix of both and we do treat the situation differently. More on that next week.
Toby…light meters! I really only use a meter for the situations you’ve alluded to, when the client is on the set and it has to be set up correctly the first time. I’ve used my lights so many times there’s an intuition about power settings. But to nail it on the first go ’round, definitely get a meter. My Minolta IV is always in the bag, just in case.
Jim, excellent points about the movie and music industry. YOU WIN!!!!! I digress! Jim, you saved your best points for last. You could have a serious career as a trial lawyer. I’d hire you. This was great fun. I had a blast on this post and enjoyed everyone’s comments.
Yeah, light meters. I am usually always setting up before the client arrives and can chimp at it a a bit until I get it right. My lighting set up varies quite a bit on location shoots due to extreme variances in ambient light and I can tell you that I really unfortunately haven’t been able to shoot enough to develop a stronger sense of intuition about my lights. I know that only comes with experience…lots of experience shooting and practicing. Unfortunately, due to the launch of another business this past year I haven’t had the time I would really like to just shoot, and shoot for me, not an assignment. Hopefully, over the Christmas break (under the guise of family holiday portraiture) I can really get some personal time with my camera and speed lights without the pressure of the clock ticking.
Many of the techniques I “know” I learned right here thanks to your posts, Jim and I appreciate all the work that goes into your blog. It really helps someone like me who will never aspire to your depth and level of photography skills and knowledge but still can benefit from great bits of information and insight. However, just knowing stuff is not enough. I need time to go out and practice all these ideas that I’ve learned so it becomes intuitive and not a cerebral undertaking. I’m workin at it…..one day I’ll get the hang of it. Until then, though, I really really really am enjoying all the learning experiences along the way through your site. Thanks for all the great advice and insight, Jim and I wish continued success to your studio and website.
Jim and William,
Thanks for your answers about how I can use the pictures… or not. I appreciate it.
Jerry
Wow, an excellent article and very well though-out comments. This article initially appealed to me as I’ve been asked by a friend of a friend to take a few photographs of a spa for a website. Well, they’ve of course come to me as I’ll get a decent photograph from time-to-time and I’m certainly no pro (read: am one of those who will work for cheap just so I can have the experience). I really have no idea what to charge and I know they don’t have the funds to compensate me even for the time it will take to make the photographs, much less the photographs themselves - they would be okay with throwing up some pics taken with their point and shoot if I charge too much.
Though I still don’t know what I’ll charge, I will bring along model releases and at least have an idea that photo rights are important
The subject most avoided here is “what to charge for,” whatever gig you’re asked to shoot. I would guess this is better answered with a range rather than specifics due to so many factors not the least of which is the competitive nature of most people in business for themselves. So I will give you a range from what I regularly see from the low end to the high end of NON-COMMERCIAL photographers that I know. $85 an hour at the very low end, to $250 and hour with 2 hour minimum by the hour, and $1200 a day with a $750 half days for general assignment photography. There are tons of circumstances that will make any of those figures go straight up, or straight down. I will tell you that the guys working at the lower end do not work near as much as the ones at the higher end. The best way to be successful at this as a career is to know your clients well and be able to give them AT A MINIMUM, exactly what they expect. Your goal is to always give them WAY MORE than they expect and this should insure that you succeed at some level. I know guys who’ll shoot an event for a plate of BBQ, and I know guys who shoot commercial who pull in 200 to 300 grand a year. I don’t know anyone in this business who is at any level successful who is doing it for the money alone, nor are any of those who consider themselves successful NOT enjoying the work.
Be happy at whatever level you fall into and enjoy photography or find something else to do.
Jim, I have been visiting your site on a regular basis.
I thank you for the effort you put in day in and day out.
Especially this article, I too find it difficult to price an assignment, by reading what each person has written, it has helped me to think about the shoot and what will be involved. Communication with the client is key.
Keep up the excellent work.
From the great white North eh?
Jim, give me three more months and I will give you in-depth review along with a survivor guide)
Leave your response!
Search Prophotolife.com
Recent Articles
Further Reading
Pages
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
Most Popular Posts
Related Posts
Most Commented
Tags
approach around the net assisting bulbs business creativity customer service education equipment exposure film fine art gear history insurance interview lenses lighting logo design marketing nature photographer photographers pinhole portrait preview professional organizations RAW review stick-in-a-can studio taxes technical video workflow