In December I promised a look at the new photo studio when there was something to see – here it is! We’re really happy with the new, downsized digs and it’s probably 90% complete. The new studio is where my time has been going, along with the photo a day project. Sorry I haven’t been keeping up with comments here on prophotolife and the follow up to my prior post. I hope to have a day this weekend to pull those things together.

Our approach for the studio move was to pitch (or donate) about 75% of what we’ve accumulated over the years and concentrate on simplification. So far it seems like a smart move. The most visible benefits are that our expenses and daily commutes are only a third of what they were before. We’re also estimating a couple of sizeable jobs that will all be done on location and the creative atmosphere of the building is a benefit. The pieces are fitting together in the way that we’d hoped, so far. Given the economy and the typically slow month of January, we’re in the best “new year” position we’ve seen in recent years. And have I mentioned enough how much I’ve wanted a natural light shooting space?

Being leaner and more efficient should also create more time for growing the business and require less time just trying to keep up with overhead. We’re brainstorming ways to further integrate still photography, video and our problem solving capabilities to advertise our rather unique abilities.

And, for anyone that’s interested, the dining room table, chairs, coffee table, overhead lamp and counter top were all from the local IKEA and were relatively affordable. We already had the other elements: leather couch from my basement, office furniture, wall photos and base cabinets. The only thing left is to get some new images up and add a few more bits of personality.

Commercial Photography

As you may know, commercial photography is what pays my way. The year started with promise: verbal agreements with a number of clients this past January had us very optimistic. In February we began receiving product for a large catalog photography job and our studio was converted into a forest floor…fun stuff. Well, the fun lasted about two weeks before our contact was let go from the company and the job was pulled due to budget cutbacks. After being paid for the sets and the work done to date, the company took the photography in-house. From the start of the year it seemed obvious that retail product companies looked set to have a tougher go of it in ‘08.

The best piece of advice I ever received was “expect the best but prepare for the worst”. I’ve seen many such occurrences over a long career and when tens of thousands of dollars slip through your fingers you just immediately focus on putting your fingers on a new job.

Overall, though, our regular clients really came through for us, across a wide range of industries. All except for the aforementioned consumer products category and, also, one of our most dependable categories: manufacturing. From 2004 to 2007 we were kept busy by companies that built components for manufacturing plants and facilities. 2008 turned eerily quiet, a sudden pullback in the manufacturing sector, it seemed. Now, looking back, some of those companies were closely connected to the auto industry. While headlines didn’t proclaim a problem for the automotive industry until fairly recently, it seems obvious now that cutbacks began a long time ago.

Our studio has managed to finish 2008 strong, though. Really strong. How is this possible in a tanking economy? Well, people seem much more deliberate with their purchases and this applies to photography, also. Where once we heard cries of “cheaper and faster”, now clients are focusing on quality service again, not just inexpensive prices. They recognize that our experience and professional practices are bringing them greater value than much of our competition and they’re thanking us for everything we do. Just when it seemed like the bottom could fall out of the value of photography, the economic downturn has restored a genuine appreciation for quality, at least for the time being. Go figure.

Video Services

After introducing video services to our clients in 2007, we’ve had the opportunity to expand our services in 2008. In the coming year I fully expect that our income will be a 50/50 split between still photography and video.

What prompted the addition of video services? A look at the visual direction of newspapers and online media. Still photographers at newspapers were being given video cameras and told to shoot streaming media. As we’ve watched media migrate from the printed page to the web, video has become more and more accessible to all. By shooting both stills and video our studio has solidified our position with our clients and created another income stream.

Photojournalism

Speaking of newspapers, we’ve seen over 15,000 jobs lost at newspapers in the past year and some of the biggest names in publishing may not make it through another year. So where does this leave photojournalism? Well, we’ve looked at some great photojournalism links here on prophotolife and there are photographers doing wonderful documentary work out there. At one time there were many newspaper internships available to students that could eventually lead to a staff position. Now, I honestly don’t know where graduating photo-j students go to fill out a job application.

Camera Gear

Wow, think about the photo equipment we’ve seen emerge in 2008. There are a handful of 20+ mega pixel DSLRs available now and the least expensive of them, the Canon 5D Mark II, also shoots hi-def 1080i video. All for around $2800.

In 2000 I was shooting with a Nikon D1 that probably sold for $5000 and was 2.7 mega pixels. How would I describe the D1? It was simultaneously amazing and crappy. If you had one you know what I mean. There were focus and color issues, the sensor was a dirt magnet and the batteries lasted about 100 shots. But, wow, it was a DSLR that took all of our Nikon lenses!

Just out of curiosity, I had to compare the professional Nikon D1 against the semi-professional Canon 5D Mark II in terms of cost per megapixel:

In 2000, approximately $1,852 per megapixel
In 2008, approximately $133 per mega pixel

Wedding Photography

My only real connection with wedding photography is as an observer. When friends ask me if I’ll shoot their wedding I always say, “I’ll do it if you ask me…but please don’t ask me”. Plus, I don’t want a qualified wedding shooter to lose a payday. I like to keep an eye on the business of wedding photography, though, because it’s been the fastest growing sector of professional photography for a couple of years now. There’s a new guard replacing the old guard, it seems, and from conversations with friends it seems to me that wedding photography is currently a Tale of Two Cities: it can either be the best of times or the worst of times.

Many of the more established professionals are seeing their businesses slow, either due to the economy or increased competition. And some of the up and comers, shooting at lower prices, are flourishing.

The market ultimately decides what it is willing to pay and if the established professionals are too high then the market will adjust. I do have some concerns with some of what I‘ve seen, though.

Unfortunately, some of the up and comers are highly talented photographers who think a logo and a website constitutes having a business. They may be skirting around income taxes (all such income is taxable, whether it‘s from a business or a hobby), sales taxes and business insurance. That’s not sustainable for the long haul and it artificially deflates the pricing of professional photography. By the time these issues eventually catch up with them there’s another hot new up and comer to take their place. As I always say, if you truly want to make it for the long haul, your best bet is to join a professional photo organization and learn from the shared wisdom of others. We’re all in this together.

In Conclusion

Photography seems to reflect the general trends we’re seeing in the overall economy and business environment. It’s competitive and money is tight so purchases are being made more deliberately. Yes, advertising is sometimes referred to as “selling the sizzle and not the steak”. At the moment our particular clients aren’t saying that, though, instead they’re asking: “where’s the beef?”.

Hey, that’s it for what I’ve seen in 2008. Are there any interesting personal experiences or obvious trends you’ve witnessed this year?

Next Monday I’d like to share what I expect and hope to see in the year ahead.

I’ll hang on to those tools forever but the motorcycles have come and gone. After racing and refining that Suzuki for two seasons, getting it perfectly dialed in, I realized there wouldn’t be time for racing for awhile. Rather than seeing the bike sit, I wanted it to be in the hands of someone who would appreciate it. A buyer was found online, somebody that knew the inner workings of that engine design every bit as well as I did. Hopefully it’s still appreciated in the same way today.

And so it goes for photo equipment. I don’t normally keep things around that aren’t being used if there’s someone else that can use it. Right now, with the holidays here, giving is especially prominent in people’s minds. In case you have some old gear gathering dust, I thought I’d toss out a few different ways old photo and computer equipment might benefit others.

I’ll say right up front that I’m not usually the one leading the volunteer charge. But I do know a number of people that fit that mold, so requests for help appear pretty regularly in my email inbox. My friends know I have a hard time saying ‘no’ to a good cause so I generally do whatever possible to help out. And, though subsequent benefits are not the priority, giving can have some year-end tax rewards. We can all use those kinds of breaks, too.

Here are some different ways my studio has found to help out local causes with our unused equipment:

1. Do you remember all that darkroom equipment mentioned in ‘around the net’ a month or two ago? Just last week our local ASMP chapter sent a notice about a new non-profit photo gallery / educational facility looking for darkroom equipment. It will be called Prairie Gallery and is headed by University of Cincinnati photo instructor David Rosenthal.

Our three Omega D5 enlargers, lenses, negative carriers, et al, were just what David was looking for. Replacement value for everything we had was probably in the tens of thousands of dollars but finding a buyer would be almost impossible. Donating the enlargers to this worthy cause not only benefits Prairie Gallery, David also mentioned that the University of Cincinnati could use the spare parts since they use D5s, also. Bonus!

2. During the past year I’ve donated framed prints to fund raisers. In the spring I had a show called “Forgotten America” at The Carnegie Arts Center in Northern Kentucky. A few prints sold but the others are sitting in storage, waiting for requests for raffle donations. It’s been easy to reach into the bin and make recent donations to both a local photo school and a church funding a trip to Mumbai.

3. The Kennedy Heights Arts Center, a community cooperative, was looking for donations for their youth photo program. Along with a bulk loader and some film developing and darkroom equipment, Daylight Photo (Bob, Bethany and I) each donated an unused, personal 35mm film camera (two Nikons and a Minolta). The work done by the first class was inspirational! It makes the donation even more meaningful if you’re able to see the result of your contribution.

4. Just the other day I asked a photo instructor if she would have any need for a couple of old point and shoot cameras that are sitting around. Without hesitation she mentioned a public school program that could put them to use. Again, these little cameras are worth nothing on the market but are valuable to an under-funded program.

5. Old, slow computers are of little use to photographers running up-to-date operating systems and software. But, walking around our new studio building the other day, I ran into someone that is putting now “ancient” Pentium II and Pentium III computers to use. He refurbishes them as simple email and word processing machines for nursing homes. Recycling is awesome, reusing is even better.

6. Some of our clients leave behind products: doors, windows, etc. Seriously. There are also extra building materials used for set construction, like carpet and flooring. During our recent studio move / cleanup Bob hauled a bunch of that stuff to a place called Building Value, a local non-profit reseller of new overstock and used building supplies.

None of the above are hugely grand gestures, they are just answers to requests or easily identified ways to keep things from gathering dust or hitting a landfill. Taken individually, none of them takes an inordinate amount of effort, but I can see now how they all add up. It’s safe to say that myself and the studio have reaped as many benefits from these contributions as the recipients.

I also want to add that it feels a bit awkward talking about pricing / money at the moment. Talk at the studio hasn’t been about photography lately, it’s been about the economy. Effects of the recession are becoming more visible and the news on cnnmoney.com hasn’t been particularly comforting. The Tribune newspapers have declared bankruptcy and NBC is mulling a cutback in broadcast hours. Many of us are feeling the sands of value shifting beneath our feet as spending on advertising contracts.

But, keeping on topic, let’s start here: some photographs are more valuable than others and not all clients are created equal. But how do you qualify the client? Regardless of how we charge for photography, it’s important for those just starting out to understand just why their photographs may provide greater or lesser value to a client.

Last week we discussed charging usage fees for commercial photography. In this model the photographer charges a creation fee and expenses to create images for a client. An additional licensing fee is then assessed based on the specific uses and distribution of the photographs.

There was a great deal of quality response on the subject, from both the photographer and client perspectives. I couldn’t have been happier with the diversity of comments. They represent a variety of approaches on how the cost of photography is packaged, each of which is working well for the respective commenter. This points out that there’s not one single way to price commercial photography.

When I first started out many years ago, charging for the specific usage of photography was stressed by my elders. I didn’t get it. As newer photographers come into the fold, I see the same blank stare in their eyes when usage is discussed. I felt that same confusion until finally a photographer explained it in a way that made sense.

He told me of a simple but iconic photograph (of a menu item) he’d taken for a local restaurant chain. If I remember correctly, he cleared a one-time sum total of a few hundred dollars after expenses (this was ‘84 or so) to shoot the image. The photo originally appeared on a menu. Then it became an important part of the company’s advertising campaign. It subsequently showed up on billboards, newspaper ads, the sides of buses and television ads. And, because it was so simple and well done, it was used for a number of years.

He began to add up the money that was spent in support of the use of the image, which was a central part of the company’s advertising campaign. All of the ad buys and additional design costs surely ran into six figures. Though the photograph was a proportionately large element in each ad it received a tiny fraction of the budget.

You‘re probably familiar with the term “impressions“. This is the number of people that view something, like a website or The Superbowl. Why is TV advertising time so expensive during The Superbowl? Tons of people watch it. This is the same reason that TV advertising is relatively inexpensive in the wee hours of the morning…not many people watching. So, it can be argued that the more people that are “watching” your photograph, the more value it has.

That’s a little background on why the use of an image plays a role in it‘s value. I’ll be the first to admit that the example given by this photographer presents an extreme to an aspiring young photographer…but it really makes the point.

But, as we’re all aware, not all clients and jobs are created equal. We have a couple of regular clients that drop off small products (cans with labels on them) at our studio a couple of times a month. Their business-to-business market is small and the uses are predictable and limited. As for the life of the photos, they change product labels yearly, which immediately renders the old images obsolete. Yep, these types of photos are often equated to “widgets”, photography as a simple product. The value that can be placed on the “use” part of this pricing equation is pretty darn small because (even in my wildest dreams) they aren’t likely to end up on a billboard or consumer advertising.

These are two extremes of how an image may be used and I hope it sheds light on how the use of an image can influence value, in addition to the time it takes to create the photograph and the experience the photographer brings to the job.

As for me, I’m going to turn off the financial websites and evening news for awhile. With the holidays almost here it’s a good time to take a break from thinking too much about money and reconnect with the simple joy of taking photographs.

Super Instant Savings on Canon DSLRs, Lenses & Speedlights

Shown here is an example of when we rely heavily on retouching and I thought you might be interested in the back story. This was a last minute assignment that had to be completed under less than ideal conditions. Though I wouldn’t want to run a business this way all the time, sometimes it keeps things interesting when a good client calls up in a panic and we’re forced to “shoot first and ask questions later”.

Last minute assignments are something we’ve learned to prepare for in the fall. A number of our clients use outdoor photography and this particular image is for the company that manufactures the decking material. Many companies are putting together their yearly marketing materials in November in order to have them ready for the new year. Inevitably, there will be a new product added at the last minute or a need for an image that was initially overlooked.

In this case the decking material was a last minute addition to the product line and the need for a photograph ended up late to the desk of the company art director. We’ve photographed many grand decks for the company but, given limited time, this was a nice but more modest construction done at the home of an employee.

When construction was complete we had a choice of two possible days for photography, then 48 hours to complete any retouching in order to make the print deadline. We wanted both days available as possibilities so plans were to photograph on the first day with the second set as the “rain delay day”.

Well, it rained the first day so plans were pushed to the second day. The day of the shoot was cloudy and gray but rain wouldn’t be falling. We packed everything up, including enough strobes to create our own sunlight on the deck if needed.

Taking a look at the “before” picture tells a lot of the story. You can see the corn field in the distance and a line of fairly sad autumn trees.

What it doesn’t reveal is that temps were below freezing and an icy wind was blowing across the western Ohio fields. Remnants of construction littered the yard at camera right and the rains had left everything a muddy mess. We cleaned the deck repeatedly during the shoot to remove our own boot tracks.

We set up the 4000 watt Norman strobes to create fake sunlight but it just wasn’t jiving with the overcast backgrounds. Instead we went with the soft available lighting. After photographing a number of angles, this was the one chosen by the client for the brochure.

I should point out a couple of things we had in mind when shooting, knowing there would be retouching done to the background. It really helps to previsualize where you’re going to take the image so you can think about the best way to get to the final product. While it’s fun to “play around in Photoshop”, it’s better to have something of a plan going in when the clock is ticking.

1. We didn’t use a tilt-shift lens so there’s visible distortion from the wide end of the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Zoom Lens. It’s fine to plan to correct distortion later but keep this in mind: shoot loose enough (leave area around the subject) to allow for the correction. If you crop too tight in the camera, squeezing the image to correct distortion may require cropping in to the subject too much.

2. The camera was high enough so grass was visually filling in between most of the deck rails. If half grass / half dirt was visible between them it would have required additional retouching of all of those small areas.

Back at the studio we arranged to photograph at a local golf course for the background image. Thankfully, the day was much nicer. Given the time allotted, this was a quick way to get a suitable background. Yes, fuller trees could have been cloned in but the client was happy and we didn’t want to risk the whole thing becoming a “Frankenshot”. Almost forgot…we checked the EXIF data on the original image to match the lens and focal length when photographing for the background.

Here are the main points we kept in mind when combining the images:

1. Color balance has so much to do with the feeling of an image. First we looked at the photograph with neutral color balance but ultimately decided to warm it up a few points (while making sure the wood color was a good match). Generally speaking, a little extra warmth makes most photos more inviting.

2. Contrast and color saturation of the foreground were boosted. Since the background was shot on a sunnier day, the original image looked too “flat” when paired with the background. The extra contrast and saturation helped liven up the original (rather dreary) shot.

3. As mentioned, perspective was corrected.

4. The side of the house at left was removed.

After all was said and done, the client loved the shot. As a matter of fact, it got more play than some of the more elaborate installations photographed under far better conditions.

While I don’t care to approach every job with the “Ready – Fire – Aim” method, sometimes it’s necessary. Our clients understand that we’ll do everything possible to create a quality photograph, regardless of the circumstances, and that‘s important to keeping them coming back.

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). I put myself in the category of “a photographer who has survived the school of hard knocks and is willing to share his personal experience”. From that vantage point I’d like to take a look at the questions posed by Rick.

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.

It’s been awhile in the making but we’re getting there. The production work is caught up (pretty much), the boxes are packed and heaps and heaps of items are getting downsized. Daylight Photo is getting ready for our next incarnation, instituting changes we’ve long thought about. Monday and Tuesday we’re moving the boxes and the following week we’ll be up and running at the new address.

It’s a dramatically different photo studio layout and design, going from a 4,000 square foot facility down to 1,000 square feet. We won’t have all of the same capabilities and the location won’t be as convenient for a few of our customers. Yet it’s something I‘ve been looking forward to for some time. There are a number of reasons for the move and, along with photos posted here, I’ll recap why it‘s simply time for a change.

A little background:

Our new studio is in a building called Essex Studios, a massive former textile factory. It’s also the place we started Daylight Photo some six or so years ago. The reason we called ourselves Daylight Photo is because of the massive windows we had there. Essex Studios is filled with art studios and is “Artsy with a capitol A”. Five times a year there are two-day art walks that draw a large local crowd. It also houses the American Sign Museum.

After Daylight Photo was a year old we had an opportunity to move from Essex to Blue Ash, our current studio, the one you’ve seen in the prophotolife videos. A friend in Blue Ash needed someone to share his studio and I had actually shared that space before, so it was like “coming home” in a way. While it lacked the character and vibe of Essex it was in a great location for industrial work. It also increased our capability for producing larger catalog and room set jobs, something we were interested in pursuing.

Now, five years later, we’re downsizing and going back to where we started out, back to Essex. The reasons?

1. The industry has changed. Building large room sets seems to be becoming a thing of the past and much of our work is done on location now. We just don’t fill all of that space the way we used to and computers are replacing set builders and prop masters.

2. The commute will be much friendlier. A one way trip to the studio will be cut from 24 miles down to 9 miles for me, a welcome change. No more 50 mile roundtrips every time I forget something on a weekend!

3. Our overhead will be cut quite a bit. I have to be honest, we had a really good deal on our big, 4,000 square foot space. But this downsize will cut the lease, utility and travel expenses by more than half. That’s money we’d rather put in our pocket.

4. I missed windows…daylight!

5. The location is closer to downtown and we’ll be surrounded by creative people every day.

It’s easy to see there will be a considerable savings in time and money as a result of the move. But what are the potential downsides? Well, we may lose a client or two because of the smaller studio or because of location. Is that a problem? We don’t consider it to be.

The biggest advantage of the time and space savings, though, will be freedom. Just because you have a large studio and sometimes do large jobs doesn’t mean they are necessarily fun and highly profitable. I think that’s a common misconception. Sometimes the headaches grow beyond the budget and, at the end of the day, it can seem like a beast that needs feeding. And it just seems like this is the right time to reconnect with our roots, the reasons we got involved with photography, and to lessen the business pressures.

Now we’ll be leaner, more agile and closer to the Cincinnati creative community. With less overhead we want to shift more of our energy to producing our own projects (both photo and video), rather than doing just client work. Hopefully now there will be time to grow prophotolife in some of the ways I‘d like to, also.

And, most of all, getting rid of some of the excess should help us to simplify and spend less time on the business of photography and more time on the fun and creativity that is photography. That should pay off in dividends that can’t be measured by time or money!

My studio has a wonderful client that imports printing presses and we’ve worked together many times on various projects. Last year we flew to another Midwestern city to do a large advertising project for them at a brand new facility, a brightly lit shop with state of the art equipment. After two days we came away with beautiful photographs that everyone was proud of…a job well done.

Shortly after that, the art director called and said they had another facility that needed photographed. This job would be different, though, the photos were for editorial use and he asked that I fly solo to Chicago to photograph a particular press for half a day. The photos were “hot” and would have to be sent to a waiting magazine the following day.

“No problem”, I said, and asked for the details.

“It’s just a couple of shots”, he replied, “of a brand new machine in a brand new facility, we’ll email you a few sample shots so you can see what we’re after”.

To date I’d done these shoots with at least one photo assistant, a full lighting setup and shooting tethered to the computer for approvals. Since this was editorial in nature and both the facility and machine were new it would be more of a “run and gun” thing. I envisioned the new, brightly lit facility we’d just worked in and felt my camera bag, tripod, a couple of battery powered strobes and light stands would do the job. The plan was to use available light and pop just a little bit of fill light in with the two small flash units. Just in case, I asked for scouting photos from the facility, to figure a few angles in advance.

The emails started coming in with shot ideas. Very creative ideas, I might add: shooting above the machine looking into the brightly colored inks and dramatic angles shot from the floor. The shot list began to grow in length and complexity. I had to remind everyone that this was an editorial shoot with a simple setup and now we’re getting into much more complex shots. They understood but, as sometimes happens, they hoped that conditions would be perfect and there would be extra time on my hands. I’d do my best but could only promise to cover the original bases. And where were the scouting shots?

The scouting shots of the facility never arrived but the shop owner assured that the new building and press would be in order. No problem, sometimes you just have to roll with it and time was flying by. Before I knew it I was on a plane and in a rent-a-car, ready to spend all of half a day in Chicago before flying back home.

My map to the shop led me to an older industrial area. Where was the new shop? Was this the wrong road? An older building had the correct address but surely this wasn’t the place. I went inside and asked for the owner.

This was indeed the place and the owner greeted me with a smile and a handshake. And then he asked me, in all seriousness, “hey, can you come back and shoot this next week?”.

Uh-oh, I sensed a communication breakdown. I assured him that the photos were needed the following day by the magazine and had to be shot asap. He cautioned that there might be a little problem with that.

We walked back toward the dimly lit press room. The building was far from new, at least fifty years of printing had been done there. Two small light bulbs hung over the press. It turns out this wasn’t a new facility, but it was new to this particular owner. Communication breakdown #1.

As we turned the corner I recognized the machine I’d traveled all of this way to shoot. Imagine my surprise to see that it was in a hundred pieces, scattered all about. At least five workers were around the press, working feverishly. Communication breakdown #2.

But wait, it gets better. Were they putting the machine together? Fixing it? Neither, they were visibly modifying it with new features so that it no longer appeared stock, the way the client expected it to be photographed. They had been working around the clock to get the modifications done in time for a big upcoming print job. Communication breakdown #3.

Now I was faced with a dimly lit older facility, a machine in pieces and, even if it were put back together, it wouldn’t appear exactly as it should. And under my arm was a folder full of beautiful advertising photos and angles the client was hoping to achieve with this quick editorial shoot.

Those kinds of days don’t happen often. Communication is key and somehow, somewhere, it broke completely down. But I still had photos to shoot.

I began negotiations with the owner and the crew in order to salvage something from the trip. They agreed to stop their work and reassemble the machine to look as close to stock as possible. This would take them about two hours and then they’d give me one hour for photography but, at that point, they needed to tear it back down to resume their modifications. They were on a completely different deadline than I was.

I had two choices: either roll with things this way or have the client intervene, complicating things but buying more time for photography. Sometimes I’d choose the latter but in this case, it didn’t seem worth it. More time wouldn’t fix the age of the facility or the dimly lit room. I made phone calls, made everyone aware of what greeted me but resigned myself to making it work in a short amount of time.

All told, I ended up with about 45 minutes for photography before heading to the airport. A series of the machine was shot with the two small flash units and a series with a press operator was taken. Needless to say, there wasn’t time for the “if you have extra time” shots.

No, the photos from that day won’t make the portfolio but the client was very happy in the end, especially given the conditions. The bottom line is that, on any given assignment, a professional photographer has to at least cover the bases, even when everything goes against them.

Like the times we’ve had to shoot in the rain and the client wants a “sunny” look…but that’s a whole ‘nother story.

]]> http://www.prophotolife.com/ever-had-a-photo-shoot-gone-bad/feed/ 13 http://www.prophotolife.com/ramblings-on-pricing-photography/ http://www.prophotolife.com/ramblings-on-pricing-photography/#comments Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:30:47 +0000 Jim Talkington http://www.prophotolife.com/?p=2099

I’ve been receiving a number of questions lately about pricing photography. Pricing photography is a difficult and confusing process and, I’ll be honest, it’s getting more difficult all the time. There are novice portrait and wedding photographers with great websites, experienced photographers with outdated websites, moms with a camera that aren’t preoccupied with profitability and established professionals offering the complete package. After looking around I understand why many of you are overwhelmed when it comes to establishing price value for portraits and weddings…at the moment I am, too. What will the coming year bring? More photographers seeking part-time income? Or a reduction in the pursuit of hobby-generated photo income?

I’m much more comfortable with pricing for advertising photography but it’s not particularly simple. My studio uses a system based on the complexity of the job and calculating and our cost of doing business, a formula learned years ago from the book Pricing Photography: The Complete Guide to Assignment & Stock Prices.  While it’s not easy to figure or explain, it’s accurate and has served me well. In addition, the usage by the client is also figured in on a per job basis. This is where my local professional photo organization comes in, too. As peers we all understand our market and have the same concerns about preserving the value of photography. Nationally, we all refer to the ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography, 7th Edition for guidelines.

I thought you might be interested in hearing what other photo jobs in my area are currently paying:

Catalog photographers shoot for a negotiated day rate, creating images for catalogs. They shoot for lower daily rates but are guaranteed a certain amount of work. A project for them may last from one week to several months. These photographers usually supply their own photo equipment and may work on location or in the client’s in-house studio. Prices can range from $300 a day for simple studio shots on white to $1000+ a day for more sophisticated photography.

Pricing for other types of photography may be easier to discover, especially if it’s a non-negotiable “take it or leave it” situation. You may be surprised to find that a major news service pays less than $200 to freelance photographers for covering an entire NFL or MLB game, the last time I checked. Plus the wire service claims all rights to the photos. So, for four hours of work, providing their own photo equipment and giving away all future earnings, the photographer walks away with $200. Rates for news and editorial uses haven’t kept pace with inflation and are still around early ‘90’s levels…plus the photographers rights have eroded.

Compare that to rates paid to photo assistants here in the Cincinnati area. Good commercial photo assistants are generally paid $150 a day (up to 10 hours). That rate hasn’t gone up in a number of years and it really is long overdue. In nearby Columbus, OH, I hear the rate is more like $200 a day. So, let’s do some math. If there are 260 working (week) days a year and a good assistant gets booked 3 days a week (that‘s a good year), that’s 156 days a year x $200 = $30,400 a year. Being self-employed, they’ll pay their own taxes, health care and expenses out of that.

Good regional magazines usually pay around $75-150 for one photo used in the front of the issue. A feature photo package seems to pay from $450 – $1500, depending on complexity. There may be additional budget for a makeup or set stylist on important packages. Small magazines may want to pay with coupons from advertisers. Seriously.

Public relations and event photography is often charged for by the hour. Locally, $125 an hour seems to be a reasonable shooting rate (with a 2 hour minimum charge). That’s just the photographer’s rate and CDs, prints and other forms of image delivery are charged for in addition.

As you can see, prices really are all over the board. Many years ago the ASMP tried to publish a recommended price list for their photographers but the Federal Trade Commission ruled it was Restraint of Trade. As a result, we’ve always been on our own. Dan Heller’s Photography Business Blog has an insightful post, Data Analysis and the Pro Photo Industry, that tells the whole story.

I sometimes wonder what the industy would look like if that standardized price list would have been published. Would pricing be viewed differently today? Would photographers work together more cooperatively? Or would the independent nature of creativity still lead us to fend for ourselves?

Have you ever wanted to see your images published as a photo story in a magazine? A key to getting photos published is understanding your chosen subject and market. Today I’d like to share some tips that helped me make a living as a freelance motorcycle magazine photographer for a number of years.

Breaking in to the market

No matter what your interest is, get out there and shoot it. Then find the different outlets for your work and study how they use photos, tailoring your submissions to their potential needs. My goal was to shoot for motorcycle magazines and that meant going to where the action was. While working a 9 to 5 job during the week, I’d attend national championship motorcycle races on the weekends to take photos.

At first I was buying my own tickets to the races and shooting from over the fence with no special credentials. This was in the days of slides so I’d prepare a submission of images afterward and send them off to magazine editors completely “on spec (speculation)” with no guarantees (note: these photos were shot a few years ago with my trusty Nikon D70, SB-800 strobe, 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens and 80-200mm Nikkor lenses).

With no prior introduction, I’d find the editor’s and art director’s names on a magazine’s masthead. After sending my photos I’d follow up with a phone call to make sure the package was received. No, they didn’t take my calls at first but they were getting used to hearing my name! Now, in the age of digital cameras, this would mean preparing a web gallery and emailing a link to editors immediately after an event. Regardless of the medium, a professional presentation and attitude helped me get their attention from the start.

After awhile the magazines began helping me obtain press credentials to events so my photos would be even better. They saw my dedication and professionalism and knew there was little risk in helping me obtain closer access. When I started getting published my name got around and soon there were phone calls from not only the magazines but also the magazine’s advertisers, looking for photos from events. This was a very welcome additional stream of income.

shot with my nifty 50mm lens

Another benefit

This was also a chance to meet the popular racers of the time and one of them, Scott Summers, happened to live very near to me. Scott was a multi-time national cross country champion and, as a result, his image was in demand. Because we were in the Midwest and the motorcycle magazine industry is in Southern California, my presence here became even more important. I became “the east coast guy” for some different publications.

A couple times a year I would visit Scott for a day, creating photos at my own expense that had an instant market. His motorcycles, racing van and clothing would all be shined to perfection, prepared for a day of marketing photography.

This was an ideal situation because Scott had twenty or so sponsors that wanted fresh photos and magazines around the world were interested in his image. When his clothing, helmet, motorcycle, tire, exhaust, etc., sponsors needed an image for advertising they would come to me and I‘d pull something out of the file for their needs.

These kinds of demands meant fully understanding the potential needs of editors and advertisers. We would shoot for a variety of photos during the day, creating action pics, portraits and even images of just his racing bike (often featured in technical articles).

Understanding your market

Each specialty is different and there were some definite tricks for marketing motorcycle images. Viewers liked to see the side of the motorcycle, particularly, so technical details could be seen. This meant photos had to be SHARP. While I liked artsy, motion-blurred images that conveyed speed, that wasn’t what the editors and readers preferred.

I also understood that the action needed to be photographed going both left and right to suit different layout needs. A bunch of images all heading just one direction might not work and, because there are numbers and letters on the bike, the images can’t be flopped.

It was always a goal to leave space for layout type and graphics above, below or around the action. I always tried to shoot verticals as if they might be a cover shot, with space left for the magazine logo overhead. Covers pay much better than small inside photos!

Horizontals would be shot so that the riders helmet never fell in the exact center of the photo. Here I was always gunning for a double-page spread and wanted to make sure that the gutter and staples wouldn’t wreck the double-page potential. Again, there’s more money for an image used larger rather than smaller.

In conclusion

This is how I made my entire living some ten or so years ago and it was the fulfillment of a dream, following a sport that I love. It involved hard work and the constant study of how to make my images better and how to make my editor’s and client’s lives easier.

I’ll be honest, though, motorcycle photography wasn’t a path to monetary riches for me. Many photographers are willing to give their work away when it involves fast vehicles, pretty models or rock ‘n’ roll and that makes for tough competition. And, as long as we’re talking realities, we have to acknowledge that many magazines are struggling as publishing moves online.

Okay, that’s the disclaimer I felt compelled to throw in but, hey, I’ve always been one to follow my dreams. The wonderful memories and stacks of tearsheets are proof that it was worth the effort for me. If being a magazine photographer is on your “bucket list”, then no matter what your interest is, get out there and shoot it!

- Jim T.