| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2012 04:05:59 PM · #26 |
| Plus the rocks are all in his head so it's hard to access them... |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:06:29 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have a box of rocks.
I'm offering my services as a geologist. |
I think you need to have first memorized a vast quantity of geologic data, or as it's usually phrased, have rocks in your head ... |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:27:50 PM · #28 |
I'm always eager to see these kinds of posts (thanks Skip!) as I am only transitioning into paid photography and for right now I'm finding figuring out the licensing to be harder than coming up with jobs.
Same as you Slippy, I have another vocation that can put food on the table- though my personal goal is to replace that with photography. I could for now do jobs for cheap just to build my resume since I do have other income. But for the most part I won't out of compassion for other photographers who are depending on photography for their main living.
My other vocation is not as easy to just jump into as photography, but year after year I see more competitors willing to slash their prices to unsustainable levels or deliver a product that is not what they are claiming for a cheap price in order to gain business. I hate these bastards! So I am not going to do the same to working photographers as I start to make a go at it myself.
I understand jobs come out where someone who doesn't usually have a need for a photographer maybe needs something simple done and can't pay proper professional prices and its great if an amateur can help them out on the cheap and have a little fun. That's really not the case with this publisher Skip has brought up though.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:37:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus the rocks are all in his head so it's hard to access them... |
Actually, I was thinking of buying one of these blister-measuring devices, and a load of antihistamine medication and setting up in the allergy business. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:41:03 PM · #30 |
great discussion, and i hope not to kill it ;-)
i'll reiterate, i took an assignment from this publisher seven years ago, on these terms. it made sense at the time, for all the reasons given by those who said they would take the work. it was quick, decent money and not a lot of headache (and the fee then was $300). i shot mainly available light and did very, very little post production beyond basic archiving and delivery prep. all the same, even though the place was only 5 minutes from my house, i did wind up with about 4 hours in it, mainly because i was very inexperienced and my workflow consisted of windows explorer, bridge, and photoshop. that worked out to about $75/hr. compared to some of the things i was shooting at the time, it wasn't bad, not at all.
however, as my career has progressed, and as i've learned along the way, i've come to look at this type of "opportunity" in a completely different light.
these publishers are making a mint off of content producers, mainly the photographers. the writing is done by staff writers who can do their interviews over the phone. the artwork is done by staff artists who work under their roof. the only overhead they can't afford is a team of traveling staff photogs...so, they farm it out, but on terms as if these photogs were staff. well, staff without salary, benefits, retirement, vacation, or provided equipment or covered travel expenses.
and i do mean a mint. the next time you come in contact with a contractor, either at their office or with one of their sales people (doesn't matter if it's an HVAC person, home remodeler, whatever), check out their sales collateral. don't be surprised to see one of those magazine profile reprints, "As Seen In Xxxxxxx Weekly". the contractor probably couldn't afford to have the whole thing produced on their own (from the standpoint of hiring a PR firm, an artist, a copywriter, and a photographer), but they'll pay $1-2 a piece for 1000-5000 of these, and they'll reorder them when they run out. they'll pay as much $200 for the 11x14 mounted and decoupaged wall piece. this the publisher gets on top of the advertising sold in the magazine.
this is where it becomes a matter of principle.
where i took this work then, i can't begin to justify it now. not even for $500, or even $600. what they want to pay is for someone who owns a camera, not someone who is running a photography business. the ironic part is that there aren't really that many people who can do this work - daytime work - with three days notice and deliver magazine-quality images. sure, there are a lot of you posting or reading through this thread, or simply participating in this site that could do this work, but are you readily available on a regular basis? once you push yourself to the point that you have the equipment and experience necessary to do the work, and have established yourself to where you are available, you'll realize you can't afford to do work that just doesn't pay, especially if it doesn't pay in the long run.
granted, not every job is going to produce images that have legs and downstream revenues; however, if you aren't in the habit of working towards that, you'll never find it. every job will be treating you like a one-time deal. it's the difference between renting out your time or owning your time.
it's also a matter of whether this is the type of work you'd like to be doing, as opposed to doing whatever it is you're doing today. over time, i've had more billings from jobs referred to me from other professionals than i've had from publishers such as these - and those referrals would not have come if i were know, as  devinder put it, as "*that* guy".
in a nutshell, you need to be paid for the shoot. this includes your experience, equipment, and creative input. you need to be covered for any and all expenses you may incur, especially travel. and you need to be paid for usage. this doesn't have to be over the top, but it does have to be accounted for. as someone noted, some images just aren't going to have much shelf-life. ok, license them for what they're good for and reserve the rights for future potential usages. you *don't* have to give it all away up front. in the end, whatever you get paid has to be fair and reasonable for all parties. and, if they don't want to pay you what you're worth, then it will be better off for all involved that they find someone else.
if you're interested, here's what i did seven years ago ;-) |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:44:35 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus the rocks are all in his head so it's hard to access them... |
Actually, I was thinking of buying one of these blister-measuring devices, and a load of antihistamine medication and setting up in the allergy business. |
Just make sure to call yourself a naturopath and you are all good... |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:50:37 PM · #32 |
I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing with you overall Skip. I know you to be a reasonable guy. I'm just looking at the overall direction the business is going and see the ability to only command lower and lower fees. It's fine to stick to principles, but you can't eat those and just might starve in the meantime (not YOU, but the average dude reading your post just getting into the biz).
It is always good to demand the price you are able, but every market has a ceiling and no amount of stubborness is going to get one over that ceiling. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 04:59:54 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have a box of rocks.
I'm offering my services as a geologist. |
I think I have a better chance at satisfying a photography client than you have of satisfying a mineral exploration client. ;-D |
Hey Slippy,
I have this rock I've been meaning to have somebody look at.... ;-)
In the meantime, while I do not do photography for money, well Ok a neighbor gave me a gift card to a BBQ joint, does that count?... We do provide services to clients. Clients who seem to have additional needs after the contract is signed. We are happy to quote them the additional price and accept their signed extra work authorization. It's about the only way to turn a profit these days. Otherwise clients will freebie you into the hole. Everybody is trying to get the most for the least.... |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:12:07 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing with you overall Skip. I know you to be a reasonable guy. I'm just looking at the overall direction the business is going and see the ability to only command lower and lower fees. It's fine to stick to principles, but you can't eat those and just might starve in the meantime (not YOU, but the average dude reading your post just getting into the biz).
It is always good to demand the price you are able, but every market has a ceiling and no amount of stubborness is going to get one over that ceiling. |
i can't argue with you, but i'll offer this:
if you want to make it in the long run, you really need to stick to principle. sure, you'll lose out on jobs like these, but you'll find that you'll be working more and more with clients who share your principles. i don't believe the industry is going to hell in a hand-basket. yes, it has changed dramatically, and yes, there are a LOT more people out there trying their hand at it, but largely, there is still a demand for high-quality imagery that still carries value for those who use it and those who produce it.
one of the key issues is retaining ownership. you either have it or you don't. the more you shoot and the more you own, the more likely you are to have images that someone might want down the road. you might not get rich, but you can realize decent residual income - if you maintain control of your inventory.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:13:29 PM · #35 |
| Amen to retaining ownership. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:33:28 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
No processing means no processing. No means No. I guess comprehension impaired would have been more accurate.
|
Ah, just can't take a hint, eh? Love the personal attacks - not. Let me spell it out carefully for you. The *customer* may not believe that *any* processing is required. What *I* believe is that I would never deliver completely unprocessed images. I shoot RAW. That at least means basic conversion, including exposure & WB optimization and any other tweaks to get the most from the RAWS. I would also adjust crop & rotation as part of that minimum processing mindset. My pride in the quality of my work demands at least this. So, impoirt, minimal adjustment, culling, export JPEGs (or TIFFs). One hour.
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I drive a two door coupe that can go three hours at 120km/h on less than $30 of gas, which is a tax write-off, as is wear & tear on my car, which is negligible in reality. I guess you drive a transport truck? 8-O |
Uh, no, I drive a diesel Jetta that gets 50 mpg. And if I include my actual costs to operate the vehicle, *all of them,*, those costs total to about $0.25/mi. And that does not take into account my time. I do not discount because I can listen to the radio. I cannot deduct the mileage, because after all I do not run a business, I'm an amateur. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:37:59 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have a box of rocks.
I'm offering my services as a geologist. |
I think I have a better chance at satisfying a photography client than you have of satisfying a mineral exploration client. ;-D |
Probably, but that's not the point. By they time they figure out I'm wrong, the check will be in the bank.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 17:45:27. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 05:41:13 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have a box of rocks.
I'm offering my services as a geologist. |
I think you need to have first memorized a vast quantity of geologic data, or as it's usually phrased, have rocks in your head ... |
I have Google, Wikipedia and this geology book I got on Amazon...I'm all set. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 06:41:41 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
No processing means no processing. No means No. I guess comprehension impaired would have been more accurate.
|
Ah, just can't take a hint, eh? Love the personal attacks - not. Let me spell it out carefully for you. The *customer* may not believe that *any* processing is required. What *I* believe is that I would never deliver completely unprocessed images. I shoot RAW. That at least means basic conversion, including exposure & WB optimization and any other tweaks to get the most from the RAWS. I would also adjust crop & rotation as part of that minimum processing mindset. My pride in the quality of my work demands at least this. So, impoirt, minimal adjustment, culling, export JPEGs (or TIFFs). One hour. |
the reality is that the images have to be downloaded, renamed, copied to archive, and separated between deliverable and non-deliverable. the deliverable images have to be captioned. then they need to be pared down as to image quality. then they will require *some* basic post-production, mainly for sharpness, wb, and exposure. i do this not as much for the client, but for myself, to assure myself that the image is in fact deliverable, to make sure that someone with post-production skills will actually be able to do something with the image. then i save the meta data to file. if i'm delivering these images as they are, i'll upload the selected images to an ftp site or i'll burn a disk. if i'm delivering processed images, i'll export them, then either ftp or burn them. then i'll update the archives with the changed files.
when you're still wet behind the ears, you are going to fairly concerned about overlooking something important and you will compensate the only way you know how: spray and pray. you'll shoot like mad and wind up with a couple hundred images to handle and weed through and the reality is that is going to take a couple hours.
today, for something like this, even though i'll try to shoot no more than 30 images, i'll probably still wind up close to an hour's worth of work on the back-end, even with "no post-processing". |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 10:53:29 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I cannot deduct the mileage, because after all I do not run a business, I'm an amateur. |
Actually, you might be able to ... you can deduct actual expenses involved in practicing a money-making "hobby" up to the point where it equals income generated ΓΆ€” you just can't take a loss and deduct it from your other income the way you could if you had a sole-proprietorship business. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 10:57:35 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...up to the point where it equals income generated ΓΆ€” you just can't take a loss and deduct it from your other income the way you could if you had a sole-proprietorship business. |
Income generated?? ;-)
Seriously, this year "income generated" was a lunch. And she still owes me that. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 09:59:53 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Skip:
...there aren't really that many people who can do this work - daytime work - with three days notice... |
True. I couldn't do a weekday.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:44:04 PM · #43 |
Thank you, Skip, for this post. I'm always interested in your experience and it helps me respect myself and my work and setting a standard that I will fight to uphold. I had some experiences recently at a school where I work and I stuck to my guns and refused to cave to pressure to give away my photographs without compensation. You have taught me some valuable lessons.
I would not have done the job either... It is silly for someone to tell you there is no post processing and it's too far to drive for that kind of money. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:01:40 PM · #44 |
I have done enough low end pro work to know that seriously professional work with a top-flight product can be extremely tough and time-consuming. Every time I do any kind of a job, I acquire more respect for the folks that dedicate the time, money, and equipment commitment it requires to be a full time professional.
It's a shame that there are all these hacks out there that have a song and dance that enables them to convince Joe & Jane Smith (Jones, whatever) that they will be able to produce what they are looking for for mere pennies on the dollar of what it does and should cost to have a true pro do it.
What's sad is when one of these people ruin it for the customers by doing a poor job at a one-time function like a graduation or a wedding.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:17:27 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... a wedding. |
But I couldn't resist the open bar !!! :-D
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:24:07 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...up to the point where it equals income generated ΓΆ€” you just can't take a loss and deduct it from your other income the way you could if you had a sole-proprietorship business. |
Income generated?? ;-)
Seriously, this year "income generated" was a lunch. And she still owes me that. |
I get a few bucks each year in stock royalties, and I sell an occasional print, about enough to let me write off some print costs or a new memory card ... but like the man says, it's the principle of the thing which is important ΓΆ€” if I should happen to make a few hundred one year and write off a lot of it I think it will "look better" (to the IRS) if I have a consistent record of working in that area. |
|
