DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Business of Photography >> A look at the phtography big leagues
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 45 of 45, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/12/2006 04:19:44 PM · #26
even after overhead I reckon they still made about $10-$20k which is pretty good if you can get those kinda jobs a few times a year. but also remember there is "hidden" overhead such as networking costs.
 12/12/2006 04:23:23 PM · #27
Transport & site rental must have been up there, for a shoot in France, too. That and paying the 10+ people involved in the shoot.

$10k for a month's work isn't too bad, but there is still a whole lot of work that goes in to it. Given that the going rate sounds like it is 4x what she charged, I suspect she wouldn't even make that much profit.

Message edited by author 2006-12-12 16:26:14.
 12/12/2006 04:35:54 PM · #28
Originally posted by Gordon:
Transport & site rental must have been up there, for a shoot in France, too. That and paying the 10+ people involved in the shoot.

$10k for a month's work isn't too bad, but there is still a whole lot of work that goes in to it. Given that the going rate sounds like it is 4x what she charged, I suspect she wouldn't even make that much profit.


perhaps not, but she may have done it for the experience or just to get her name in good with a large marketing firm. if they are pleased next time she could charge more and still be under the competition.

I wonder if the people she undercut were commenting like the people that do macro stock work complain about micro stock. "she is just hurting the entire industry! I mean working for $20,000 per day. she apparently doesn't respect her work very much";)

Message edited by author 2006-12-12 16:37:08.
 12/12/2006 04:40:44 PM · #29
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by magenmarie:
Originally posted by Wildcard:
Pfft I would have done it for $40 000 and if I shot 7000 photos I'd have 15 good ones too( mostly by accident and with the help of PS ). Who do I call?


LMAO!

ME too!


You must think you are a whole lot better than the photographer mentioned then, if you are willing to charge $2667 per usable shot and they are charging $28.5 per usable shot.


Hell, I think I'm good enough to give them 2800 out of 7000 to choose from :-)
 12/12/2006 04:47:42 PM · #30
Originally posted by Elvis_L:

I wonder if the people she undercut were commenting like the people that do macro stock work complain about micro stock. "she is just hurting the entire industry! I mean working for $20,000 per day. she apparently doesn't respect her work very much";)


That certainly crossed my mind too.
 12/12/2006 05:00:31 PM · #31
Originally posted by Gordon:
Transport & site rental must have been up there, for a shoot in France, too.


Sorry, French Chateau, but in California vineyard country - hehe -
 12/12/2006 05:02:49 PM · #32
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:

I wonder if the people she undercut were commenting like the people that do macro stock work complain about micro stock. "she is just hurting the entire industry! I mean working for $20,000 per day. she apparently doesn't respect her work very much";)


That certainly crossed my mind too.


From what the client said, the fact they got a deal is more related to her experience more than anything. The $80k/day guys have all worked on $100,000/shot gigs for giant fashion companies, car companies, etc. So they were happy that the agent had someone they could afford to work with.

Remember, there's an agent involved - a very different game than the petty stock stuff we argue here - the more the agent can extract the more he gets paid -
 12/12/2006 05:06:57 PM · #33
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:


Hell, I think I'm good enough to give them 2800 out of 7000 to choose from :-)


I wish I could post them - or even tell you the names of the companies involved - but since there's a fair amount of money involved in the exclusivity of it all...

Let me just say they were stunning - the lady definately understands light in ways that I hope to some day - to walk in there with a truck full of props and assistants with bounce cards and produce that kind of work is amazing...

I don't mean to make this seem like it was approachable at all - I have a couple more years of really pushing my learning curve to even understand the lighting - let alone working with that many people, even getting an agent, it's a daunting task to say the least.

I just thought it was interesting that I'm happy I sold an image for $800 feeling all big and like I'm getting somewhere - and then I learn what it's REALLY like - how much higher the mountain really goes.

Message edited by author 2006-12-12 17:07:18.
 12/12/2006 05:09:50 PM · #34
There's an interesting shot in this month's American Photo, that was shot for wonderbra. Shot is a sushi restaurant, I counted 15 actors in the scene. The notes mentioned that each person was individually lot and it sure looks that way.

That sort of production boggles my mind and it wasn't even a very complex set.
12/12/2006 05:32:40 PM · #35
It sounds like that all the ribbon winners and veterans here need is a good agent to push and showcase their work. There is certainly a tremendous amount of talent here. However, photographers and singers or for that matter, any artist need to be discovered. Unfortunately, most do not rise about the "serious hobby" state, no matter the talent.
 12/12/2006 05:35:34 PM · #36
Originally posted by Gordon:

That sort of production boggles my mind and it wasn't even a very complex set.


It's a less complex production than a movie set. It's all about having a plan and directing the talent.
 12/12/2006 05:37:06 PM · #37
Originally posted by AllanL:
It sounds like that all the ribbon winners and veterans here need is a good agent to push and showcase their work. There is certainly a tremendous amount of talent here. However, photographers and singers or for that matter, any artist need to be discovered. Unfortunately, most do not rise about the "serious hobby" state, no matter the talent.


Or the professional wedding singer :-)
 12/12/2006 05:52:46 PM · #38
Originally posted by Gordon:
There's an interesting shot in this month's American Photo, that was shot for wonderbra. Shot is a sushi restaurant, I counted 15 actors in the scene. The notes mentioned that each person was individually lot and it sure looks that way.

That sort of production boggles my mind and it wasn't even a very complex set.


I saw that one too, Hell of a shot. Did you notice that among all those people int he restaurant, ONE person, in the center of the shot, is NOT looking up & out at whatever everyone else is looking at? I found it fascinating this detail was not mentioned in the description, it seems central to what they are doing somehow but I have no context in which to evaluate it.

R.
 12/12/2006 06:01:42 PM · #39
I have worked on several photo shoots in my day. Part of the climb in what I do now.

Usually was a non-union gig. Grip and Electric were usually the same couple of guys, and a few production assistants, or camera assistants helping out.

Some of the best craft service (food & drink), however. One shoot I remember the craft service lady would bake fresh bread every day in one of those bread making machines, and the whole studio would be enveloped with this aroma of fresh bread.

100K is pretty cheap when it comes to a photo shoot. A good photog can make that in a day if they are popular. Good photographers get that 'Rock Star' persona. Just like a good Director of Photography. If their eye can make an image that can sell, that guy with the eye will make tons of money.

To give an idea of the expence, an average music video that you see on MTV can cost between $100k-1m.


12/12/2006 06:06:22 PM · #40
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


I saw that one too, Hell of a shot. Did you notice that among all those people int he restaurant, ONE person, in the center of the shot, is NOT looking up & out at whatever everyone else is looking at? I found it fascinating this detail was not mentioned in the description, it seems central to what they are doing somehow but I have no context in which to evaluate it.

R.


I think it was done on purpose to help draw the eye around the photograph. If you notice, there are a total of 4 models almost in a straight hoizontal line that are not interacting with the camera.

A trick to help the eye move around the image.
 12/13/2006 06:40:02 PM · #41
So a couple of questions to break down the costs:

1) How much does it cost to have a model for a day? $500? $1000? $2000? And since there are three of them for four days!
2) How much does it cost to have a hair stylist? $500 a day? Same for makeup?
3) How much for the lighting truck?
4) Assistants? Are they on salary?

Need to add additional expenses like rental of vinyard, room & board for all involved.

Then how long does it take to process 7000 images to filter down to the lower number? Then the time working with the client to reduce count to 15....

I imagine these all cost a good bit and the profit back probably wasn't that much....
 12/14/2006 10:42:54 AM · #42
Most all commercial shoots work on a cost+ basis.
a day rate for the photog, and then whatever the client needs at cost plus some markup (fee for managing and arranging it all).

And this was more than 4 days work - probably many meetings on the concept and layout, location scouting, calling around to get teh props/location/models/stylists, etc, etc. A few more calls to work on wardrobe, etc.
then you shoot 7000 images - how long will it take to get that to 2800? And what PP work do you do (if any) on those 2800? Probably none, and probably none on the 15 final images either - the final user will hace the right(s) to process them as needed for their use as each medium will want something slightly different in resolution or color or whatnot.

I have an upcoming shoot of a rapper for a CD cover. The studio shots are not a problem, but he wants some outdoor shots and lives 150 miles away - so it's up to me to scout locations, times of day for access and lighting issues- and then probably show him these on the shoot day and either use them or veto them - we're not a $20,000 a day budget (unfortunately) but the time invested is 2 - 3X the actual shoot time.
 12/14/2006 11:51:41 AM · #43
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


I saw that one too, Hell of a shot. Did you notice that among all those people int he restaurant, ONE person, in the center of the shot, is NOT looking up & out at whatever everyone else is looking at? I found it fascinating this detail was not mentioned in the description, it seems central to what they are doing somehow but I have no context in which to evaluate it.

R.


I think it was done on purpose to help draw the eye around the photograph. If you notice, there are a total of 4 models almost in a straight hoizontal line that are not interacting with the camera.


I studied that photo when I got the magazine in the mail, and I think I figured it out, lol: The girl on the left is looking at her boyfriend, pissed off that he's checking out the girl walking in with the cleavage. The guy with his back turned towards camera is too busy eating his sushi to notice. The guy reading the menu is either gay or married to the girl at his table and knows not to look, so he's burying his face in the menu so he doesn't get yelled at by his wife. The guy on the right looks to be the same guy right above the gay/married guy but he's reflected in a mirror. There you have it. :-)

Oh, I just found it online so people without the mag could see the photo.
 12/14/2006 11:58:15 AM · #44
Originally posted by Telehubbie:


I studied that photo when I got the magazine in the mail, and I think I figured it out, lol: The girl on the left is looking at her boyfriend, pissed off that he's checking out the girl walking in with the cleavage. The guy with his back turned towards camera is too busy eating his sushi to notice. The guy reading the menu is either gay or married to the girl at his table and knows not to look, so he's burying his face in the menu so he doesn't get yelled at by his wife. The guy on the right looks to be the same guy right above the gay/married guy but he's reflected in a mirror. There you have it. :-)


That was pretty much how I'd read it too, when I saw it last week.
 12/14/2006 12:57:01 PM · #45
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
The guy reading the menu is either gay or married to the girl at his table and knows not to look, so he's burying his face in the menu so he doesn't get yelled at by his wife. The guy on the right looks to be the same guy right above the gay/married guy but he's reflected in a mirror. There you have it. :-)


I think the 'woman' with the guy reading the menu is really a man. Look, you can almost see an adams apple.

And the reflection in the mirror thing. Genius. I just assumed, it was another model until further inspection per your post.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:51:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:51:22 PM EDT.