| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2007 11:47:54 AM · #26 |
Is this client soliciting multiple bids from photogs? or is it just you?
Losing rights to my images is a big deal to me, and I shudder to think about lost future income. If I were in this situation I'd charge between $2-3000. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:48:19 AM · #27 |
If I were me, I'd do it for $400 (Canadian), because I'm not really a photographer, and that's what I'd need to cover for taking a day off from my day job.
If I were Skip Rowland, I'd charge more because he's a pro.
======================================================
EDIT....Now that I've seen Skip's post above:
I'd have the choice of doing the shoot and losing money by not working at my normal day job. Or just carrying on as usual. Personally, because I'm not a pro, I'd take the job anyway, just for fun, and eat the loss as the cost of the fun.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 11:52:51. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:49:07 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by tryals15:
Is this client soliciting multiple bids from photogs? or is it just you?
Losing rights to my images is a big deal to me, and I shudder to think about lost future income. If I were in this situation I'd charge between $2-3000. |
LOL. Well, I guess I'd walk away... =] |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:54:11 AM · #29 |
i would have walked away
300$ is not a good day rate |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:54:22 AM · #30 |
I think Slippy hit it on the head. Any of us "non-professionals" would probably jump on it. I actually have done candids for events. I charged $75 per hour, only basic editing and gave them a CD to use as they wanted. But if I was a professional, no way.
Edit to add: I did not lose copyright though.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 12:12:30.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:54:55 AM · #31 |
*shaking head as I leave* My time would be MUCH better spent in my studio.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:56:24 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by idnic:
*shaking head as I leave* My time would be MUCH better spent in my studio. |
Ditto...
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:58:29 AM · #33 |
I love these threads because I get so much insight.
My problem here and I mean this very respectfully is that I don't like the idea of anyone dropping their pants for any type of job. Have to be realistic. It may only be an hours shoot but when you consider the time of day, travel and extras, you can't consider quoting for anything less than a days rate. Anything less and you give the impression that you're 'working for food' and willing to do anything for it. For a few hundred dollars, and trust me you're setting a standard with them that they'll never forget... and they'll have no loyalty to you for future work as they already mentioned that they've used others in the past for rediculously low prices... spend the same amount of time and go after new accounts that'll pay you what you're worth. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:58:51 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
now, knowing this, and having read the spec, would you bid differently, or would you just walk away, shaking your head... |
Tough one.
Idealistically, Pros CHARGE far more than this.
That rate seems tailored to a part-time/semi-pro kind of photographer.
* Other factors that would affect this is the real world:
* How hungry is one?
* Would shutting the door on this black list you as a Prima-Donna?
* Is this a one-time thing, or does it open the door for secure, gravy work down the road.
* Would this step down hurt or promote the photographer as far as being able to state being the venue's photographer?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:59:34 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by tryals15:
Is this client soliciting multiple bids from photogs? or is it just you? |
yes, you are bidding against unknown other photographers.
Originally posted by tryals15:
Losing rights to my images is a big deal to me, and I shudder to think about lost future income. If I were in this situation I'd charge between $2-3000. |
keep in mind, it's probably not as much an issue of future income as it is as to image usage. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 12:42:33 PM · #36 |
i gotta tell ya, i'm really impressed with the responses to this thread!!!
honestly, after i read the spec, i nearly bust a gut at the thought of $300. my first thought was, "they are either idiots, or theives, or both."
maybe, maybe they are ok with down-home semi-pro shooting. and believe me, from a quality standpoint, there are a ton of people here at dpc that could probably get the job done, if all they really needed was some decent photographic documentation of their ribbon-cutting event.
on the other hand, it sounds like an absolute crap-shoot to expect that you are really going to get professional grade images for that kind of money. it really makes you wonder what their overall corporate strategy is, when they're willing to take those risks...
so, depending on where you are with your photography, your quotes are probably in line ;-) |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 12:44:17 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
now, knowing this, and having read the spec, would you bid differently, or would you just walk away, shaking your head... |
after re-reading the setup, if you really don't have to do any processing then your time is going to be spent shooting and getting captions. even if you shoot for a full hour and then do your editing and captioning, you're still looking at about 3 hours total. that's $100/hour.
the question is, is that worth it to YOU? it would be to me, as it's right about my hourly billing rate for photography.
i guess the question is, what is the minimum hourly rate you would work for?
--
on another note: i shoot all the time and never get the "rights" to my photos. *shrug* i don't really care. i'm getting paid a decent hourly wage and i like the work. graphic designers don't get the "rights" to the work they produce on an hourly basis. web designers don't really either. i have said it before and i'll say it again: i don't understand why photography has to be priced out so differently. you work for an hour and then you turn over the work and you get paid. it's just like every other creative profession.
my $.02 |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 12:47:59 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
The client will take sole ownership of the images and their copyright, and you will not be allowed to display the images in your portfolio.
|
This would be the deal killer for me.
I simply wouldn't work for anyone who would be ashamed to let people know who took their pictures. Most photographers sell the use of their images with limitations to be used as they were intended. The photographer should always keep the rights to his own work. No exceptions. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 12:58:44 PM · #39 |
Problem with big Franchise-Corporate America:
Someone sat down and wrote what they expect to pay for something, be it a grand opening press release photographic job or refuse removal. They push around until they get what they want. In many cases, it's not quality they are after, just completion, and if someone or some company doesn't accept their budget, they'll find someone or some company that will.
I'm in no way saying all big companies at that way, but assume quite a large number are.
Much of the consumer-public is no different either.
$40 for an oil change? No way - I'm going to xyzlube where I can get it for $19.95.
An oil change is an oil change, just as a picture is a picture
Right...
My oil changes are about $40 and up, and stand fast on it.
No shortage of appointments for them here either.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:05:56 PM · #40 |
A picture is a picture... perhaps.
But a work of art cost's a little more.
Are they just buying pictures? it sounds like it to me. I don't just hand a client a box of pictures and say... "Pick the ones you like". It's more about taking a specific picture that will give the viewer a visual impact to be used for a very specific reason. That's not something thats usually just sitting there in my portfolio. The project needs to be well thought out. If it's just an ugly mess of every cheap image they could get their hands on. I'm not sure I would want my name on it anyway. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:21:51 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by BradP:
My oil changes are about $40 and up, and stand fast on it.
No shortage of appointments for them here either. |
Sad thing is there are people that will pay that much to have their oil changed. I can go to my local Dodge dealer and have the oil changed on my truck for $50 and it's a deisel that holds 12 quarts of oil.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:27:07 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
A picture is a picture... perhaps.
But a work of art cost's a little more.
Are they just buying pictures? it sounds like it to me. I don't just hand a client a box of pictures and say... "Pick the ones you like". It's more about taking a specific picture that will give the viewer a visual impact to be used for a very specific reason. That's not something thats usually just sitting there in my portfolio. The project needs to be well thought out. If it's just an ugly mess of every cheap image they could get their hands on. I'm not sure I would want my name on it anyway. |
It sounds like they want a dozen 'grip 'n' grin' photos for their store opening, not fine art. $10-$30 per shot. Maybe low, but if you weren't doing something that would be gaining you more money in those 3 hours, then that's just an opportunity wasted. If you would be earning more money doing something else, then be doing something else. Seems pretty straight forward.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:56:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by BradP:
My oil changes are about $40 and up, and stand fast on it.
No shortage of appointments for them here either. |
Sad thing is there are people that will pay that much to have their oil changed. I can go to my local Dodge dealer and have the oil changed on my truck for $50 and it's a diesel that holds 12 quarts of oil. |
OK
Now for the reality, in Southern California, and most other states too:
Cost of oil has gone through the roof. Autozone is over $3.00/qt.
I buy the best oil - Castrol GTX 5W-30 and dealer filters, and a new aluminum crush washer, top-off all fluids, wait - better yet, here is verbatim, what I do:
- Change oil & filter, check belts & underhood hoses, check battery, fill as necessary, check battery terminals, inspect underhood for obvious malfunctions, damages/wear, check tire pressures. Top-off underhood fluids & reset maintenance light (if applicable).
And charge $11.00 labor for doing so. My parts profit runs about $10.00
I lose money on my $40 oil changes when you factor in the time, but do it for my regular customers as a courtesy more than anything else.
Now why do some places do it for so much less? Oh they will swear it absolutely HAS TO have a new (high profit margin) air filter (than may have been changed 3 weeks before), and really NEEDS this & that and then some, (not saying all shops are that way mind you), and most will be using minimum-wage help to offset their high overhead.
I haven't spent one cent in advertising in the last 5 1/2 years, and am booked typically a week in advance, even for my ridiculous $40.00 & up oil changes, performed by a 4-time recertified master technician.
Yeah - I get a bit ruffled when these kind of attitudes pop up.
btw - after you leave with your 12 quarts, check the air pressure in the tires. Most trainees use the max pressure on the side of the tire to set the inflation instead of looking in the door jamb for the manufacturers specs, that is if they were checked....
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:11:54.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:59:38 PM · #44 |
| Maybe its just me, but I can't help but chuckle when people get all bent out of shape about rights to a few pictures of suits cutting a ribbon in front of a Taco Bell like they're going to be worth anything to anyone else besides the suits cutting the ribbon. I think 300 may be a little low, I'd try for 4, but it just comes down to what its worth to YOU. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 02:44:49 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by samhall:
Maybe its just me, but I can't help but chuckle when people get all bent out of shape about rights to a few pictures of suits cutting a ribbon in front of a Taco Bell like they're going to be worth anything to anyone else besides the suits cutting the ribbon. I think 300 may be a little low, I'd try for 4, but it just comes down to what its worth to YOU. |
I wouldn't take a picture of a bunch of dry old suited people standing out in front of the store. I guess this would fall under the old:
"You get what you pay for."
If any old picture is all they want, they can have it. It's not my kind of work and probably not worth my time.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 03:02:33 PM · #46 |
I'm late to this thread, but as someone who's been through all that here's my reactions:
1. ALWAYS ask the client what their budget is. If they won't give you a ballpark figure, in my experience, they're basically weasels and more trouble than they are worth.
2. If you don't want to work for something approximating that figure, tell them so immediately and give them a number you can live with. Don't mess around trying to "sell" yourself etc etc, just get the figures on the table.
3. These PR jobs operate under different rulesets than what we are used to discussing as "professional photography" in here. It's true that the client is nearly always looking for "completion", not excellence per se; just about any DPC member could do this job adequately well, and if any of us did a MORE than adequate job on it, it's unlikely the client would notice anyway. In fact, I'd go so far as to say: tot he extent that you seek out unusual angles, POV, and lighting on jobs like this you are probably going to disappoint the client. That's not what they want to see.
4. Delivery of negatives and rights is the NORM for work like this, and realistically that's the way you want it! If you were doing this stuff for a living, you'd be too busy lining up jobs to want to bother with post-production beyond the minimum. There's simply not enough money in it. NO client is going to pay prices that leave you a decent profit for, say, prints for PR handouts. That simply isn't in the budget.
5. Those of you who are saying "It's not worth my time at that price!" are absolutely correct, if that's how you feel. Back in the day, the ONLY time we did work like this was to keep an established client (architect, builder, restaurant group, whoever) happy: if they spent money on us all year, we wouldn't mind "donating" a little time to record the openings of the projects we were going to be shooting for them. We'd usually send an assistant to do the work, actually.
6. $300 seems perfectly reasonable to me for the job as described. Think of it as "found money"; you're in, you're out, you deliver product the same afternoon, you're paid. Stuff like that is good to do, IF you have the time available and could use some extra bucks. They won't have any problem finding people to do the work for that price.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 03:23:39 PM · #47 |
Bear is right. This is pretty much a job most can do with their camera in "professional" mode :-)
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 03:31:21 PM · #48 |
If they hire me, they run the risk of getting a CD full of more interesting shots, like:
- catching people picking their nose or scratching their crotch,
- some up-skirt shots,
- some macros of nearby road-kill... |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 03:33:00 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
If they hire me, they run the risk of getting a CD full of more interesting shots, like:
- catching people picking their nose or scratching their crotch,
- some up-skirt shots,
- some macros of nearby road-kill... |
All for 400CAD? What a deal! =] |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 03:33:03 PM · #50 |
| $5000 which includes the shoot, selection, and delivery. This is PR and the budget can take that at least. |
|
