| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2012 10:40:12 AM · #1 |
I recently received the following email:
Originally posted by Magazine Art Director:
Hello, Skip!
I am the art director for a weekly trade magazine, The XXX NEWS.
We are currently in need of a photographer to shoot photos for an on-the-job spotlight feature for a January 2013 issue. We are highlighting the owner of a xxxx, VA contracting company.
We know this location is about 1.5 hours from Mechanicsville, but since I have worked with you in the past and was impressed with your work, I wanted to contact you first to see if you would be interested in this job.
We are looking for 7-8 different photos (horizontal and vertical) of the owner interacting with other employees within the company. These shots will reflect the day-to-day operations of the company. It is not necessary for the owner to be in all of the shots, but a well-rounded shoot would include many of him with his employees. (Examples can be found in our January 23, 2012, digital issue that is online at www.xxxxxx.xxx - cover and features begin on page 16.)
We also need a nice headshot of the owner, which will be used small (1” x 2”) on the cover along with our other winners from across the country.
Given past photo shoots of this nature with our magazine, you can expect to spend no more than 2 hours at the company. In fact, many photographers finish within one hour. You also should not need any special lighting or photo touch-ups. I can do that on my end, but I do need quality photos with appropriate compositions.
In addition, we will also need the copyrights to the photos. (See attached.) [bolded by me]
I would like delivery of the photos by Dec. 24, 2012, if possible. Photos can be sent via ftp site or on CD or DVD.
The contractor would like the photo shoot at 1 pm on Thursday, Dec. 20. If you would like this assignment but are unable to shoot at that time, please offer up some other times and I will run them past the contractor.
If you are interested in this job and you are willing to meet our budget of $400 (may be flexible), please let me know. If you are unavailable but know of another photographer in the area who might be able to help us out, I would very much appreciate it if you were to forward on this email.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon. |
On one hand, sure, $400 would be a nice little toss in the Christmas kitty, but, seriously...
This magazine is one of over 20 publications the publisher puts out. Their advertising revenues are nearly $5,000 PER PAGE. And these profiles are written in such a way that they can be sold back to the company being profiled as marketing materials at really nice prices.
So I am to spend 5-7 hours of my time shooting something that will pay me once, while earning them a ton? Not this year. I did take this job from them seven years ago, only it involved 10 minutes of travel and I didn't have a clue about licensing. That was then...
This time, I replied:
Originally posted by Skip:
Greetings, Xxxxx, and thanks for your inquiry!
I'd love the opportunity to work with you again, and I can carve the time in my schedule to fit in the shoot, as long as the following terms are acceptable:
Shooting Fee $500
Digital Capture Fee $200
Travel: $0.65/mile. Estimated 200 miles: $130
This would include a license to publish the delivered images one time in print and online. Subsequent publication/usage is not included, nor are rights to reprint or relicense the images. Skip Rowland Photography, Inc. would retain the copyright to the images.
Reprint License: $1000
This would give you permission to reprint the images for marketing materials purchased by the subject; it would not include permission to republish the images in the magazine for either editorial or marketing purposes.
I can do this shoot Thursday and can deliver the images to you by Friday morning.
Thanks again, all the best, |
Expectedly, they declined my offer and will probably find a newspaper staffer/freelancer who doesn't care. This is the nature of the business. I personally, though, can't justify giving it away, especially when the publisher is making money hand over fist.
Not unexpectedly, the three other professionals I sent this along to also opted to pass on the opportunity. It's one thing if you really, really need the money; however, when it comes to working professionally, you have to decide how you want to be perceived by those you deem to be your peers. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 11:09:44 AM · #2 |
| Hey, I'm not a pro, but seriously? $400 flat fee and you'd have a 3-hour round trip at your cost plus a 1 to 2 hour shoot, processing time, etc? Hell, *I* wouldn't take this job! |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 11:16:53 AM · #3 |
| You made the right choice. Whatever the field, that $400 rate isn't feasible (to include travel time and expense and processing etc.) - Should be at least double that, as you calculated. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 11:22:22 AM · #4 |
Travel time = 3 hours, photo shoot less than 2 hours.... 5 hours total. No photo processing desired by the art director, he does it on his end.
$400/5hours = $80 per hour.
Personally, I would've done it, since it's more than my hourly rate as a geologist, but I'm a whore that way. Of course, he said he was flexible on price, so I would've haggled him up to $500 just for sport.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 11:24:27 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
...processing time, etc? ... |
Originally posted by JH:
...and processing etc... |
Originally posted by Magazine Art Director:
... You also should not need any special lighting or photo touch-ups. I can do that on my end, but I do need quality photos with appropriate compositions... |
For the reading-impaired, no processing desired.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 11:25:59.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 11:50:30 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
$400/5hours = $80 per hour.
Personally, I would've done it, since it's more than my hourly rate as a geologist, but I'm a whore that way. |
That's what separates the amateurs from the pros; one time earnings are only that - licensing is the key to have long lasting earnings. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 11:50:51 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by kirbic:
...processing time, etc? ... |
Originally posted by JH:
...and processing etc... |
Originally posted by Magazine Art Director:
... You also should not need any special lighting or photo touch-ups. I can do that on my end, but I do need quality photos with appropriate compositions... |
For the reading-impaired, no processing desired. |
I guarantee that if you shot that stuff without lighting it, the AD would flip out over the "crap" you sent them, screaming "I can do miracles in Photoshop, but you at least have to try to take a decent picture" |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 12:04:19 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by kirbic:
...processing time, etc? ... |
Originally posted by JH:
...and processing etc... |
Originally posted by Magazine Art Director:
... You also should not need any special lighting or photo touch-ups. I can do that on my end, but I do need quality photos with appropriate compositions... |
For the reading-impaired, no processing desired. |
There will always be some amount of processing, even if only making adjustments to levels, cropping, or resizing etc (by touch-ups he's probably talking about blemish removal etc.)
I doubt you'd get away with sending him the raw files straight out of camera (I don't know, is that how it works on these photo assignments?)
Also, $400 is €300 in my money - A *very* big chunk of that is gone on diesel for the car. And take another €20 out for lunch. And €10 for tolls etc. It starts to deplete very quickly.
ETA: And in my mind, I'm adjusting for the 'hassle factor' of having to deal with real people. If it was a product shoot you could line things up and pose them how you want. But here you've got to deal with office workers and their boss, and people not showing up on time, or acting funny with you. It's like the danger money of photography, having to deal with real people.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 12:07:48. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 12:10:04 PM · #9 |
I'm a little put off by the "reading impaired" comment... seriously? You really think that there will be *no* time required to process images? No importing, archiving, basic adjustments? Come on. And "no lighting required?" As Spork posted, that's laughable.
Yes, $400 is a raw rate of about $80/hour, but only if you don't figure in the fact that the vehicle costs alone eat $100 of the gross. After considering this, we're down to $58. Add just one hour on the "office end" for that supposedly unnecessary processing and you're down to $48. With no follow-on business. That may be workable for an amateur, but it will not cover the costs of running a business. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 12:24:40 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm a little put off by the "reading impaired" comment... seriously? You really think that there will be *no* time required to process images? No importing, archiving, basic adjustments? Come on. And "no lighting required?" As Spork posted, that's laughable. |
No processing means no processing. No means No. I guess comprehension impaired would have been more accurate.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yes, $400 is a raw rate of about $80/hour, but only if you don't figure in the fact that the vehicle costs alone eat $100 of the gross. After considering this, we're down to $58. Add just one hour on the "office end" for that supposedly unnecessary processing and you're down to $48. With no follow-on business. That may be workable for an amateur, but it will not cover the costs of running a business. |
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
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 12:48:11 PM · #11 |
i my experience, the work involved is often played down at the initial proposal. This is true in several fields of work. Once you have a receipt on paper that says "right out of camera, no flash required" and present it to the client, a general move is made away from the initial project request. This does not rule out successful photogs like ibarionex (granted he uses other tools), but thats a different style all together, and the requirements are different. I don't see him doing this sortof a shoot either though.
Your experience of course may differ. i've made the mistake of assuming no extra work needed means exactly that once before, never again. Everything on paper. Ofcourse the question here is a matter of principle not profit. Accepting low paying jobs at a mature point of your career can really peg you as "that guy" - and steer you swiftly away from the quality, quantity and pay-level you want to work at. If it were just about the money at this point in time, the job seems to be pretty no-nonsense.
Just my two cents.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 12:53:40. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 12:51:45 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
...Accepting low paying jobs at a mature point of your career can really peg you as "that guy" - and steer you swiftly away from the quality, quantity and pay-level you want to work at. If it were just about the money at this point in time, the job seems to be pretty no-nonsense.
Just my two cents. |
Luckily for me, I don't make a living at photography. I'm a professional hack. :-D
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 01:30:16 PM · #13 |
i don't know why youd call yourself a hack, i know your work is certainly excellent so i assume you can/have sold work at some point if not for a living. All i m saying is that my relatively short bit of experience allows me to sympathize with what skip standing for. At my current point in my career, 400$ would be great to take care of some initial website costs, and i'd likely pick up that project - but if things go my way, i hope to be in a whole different price segment in 7 years.
edit: the same idea is practically resurfaced when i've worked for other photogs as an assistant and also in the couple of photography business workshops i've attended.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 13:31:54. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 01:50:39 PM · #14 |
| I dunno. I like Skip's posts and he is always helpful with his willingness to share "behind the scenes" details, but I'm on the side of thinking that $400 was reasonable or could have been negotiated up to, say, $500. On a per-hour basis, this is pretty reasonable for work like this. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 01:54:30 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I dunno. I like Skip's posts and he is always helpful with his willingness to share "behind the scenes" details, but I'm on the side of thinking that $400 was reasonable or could have been negotiated up to, say, $500. On a per-hour basis, this is pretty reasonable for work like this. |
Holy crap, I can't believe you're passing up the opportunity to pile-on !
ETA... and I could negotiate up to $500, I'm sure.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 13:55:00.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 01:59:04 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Holy crap, I can't believe you're passing up the opportunity to pile-on !
|
Your moustache scares me...
I do support Skip about the copyright portion. That would have to be changed too.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 14:00:04. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 02:00:10 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I dunno. I like Skip's posts and he is always helpful with his willingness to share "behind the scenes" details, but I'm on the side of thinking that $400 was reasonable or could have been negotiated up to, say, $500. On a per-hour basis, this is pretty reasonable for work like this. |
Not for the right/terms they were asking ... maybe if they'd accepted licensing terms the price would be practical, but for a big corporate publisher I think what he quoted was far more reasonable than their offer; the fact that several other photographers also rejected the job would seem to me pretty good evidence of this ... |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 02:06:56 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I dunno. I like Skip's posts and he is always helpful with his willingness to share "behind the scenes" details, but I'm on the side of thinking that $400 was reasonable or could have been negotiated up to, say, $500. On a per-hour basis, this is pretty reasonable for work like this. |
Not for the right/terms they were asking ... maybe if they'd accepted licensing terms the price would be practical, but for a big corporate publisher I think what he quoted was far more reasonable than their offer; the fact that several other photographers also rejected the job would seem to me pretty good evidence of this ... |
I didn't mention fast enough that I agreed the handing over of copyright would have to change at that rate. I don't know what "big corporate publisher" means because we don't know the publication. My thinking is more on the general economics of things. Photography has become a profession with very little barrier to getting in. Costs of equipment have dropped exponentially which has increased the supply side of the equation. That's the facts of life and that means the amount that can be commanded by the profession will suffer. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 02:07:52 PM · #19 |
| I am not a professional yet but hope to be after I learn from the pros so I know how to handle situations just like this one. Awesome! |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 02:23:22 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by h2:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
$400/5hours = $80 per hour.
Personally, I would've done it, since it's more than my hourly rate as a geologist, but I'm a whore that way. |
That's what separates the amateurs from the pros; one time earnings are only that - licensing is the key to have long lasting earnings. |
I accept that you and Skip are on a different plane of photographic existence compared to me. I will whore myself out for the $500, and you can buy me a beer later that day with your long lasting earnings. But at the end of the day... who will be the one who convinces the owner and his secretary to strip naked for some shots in front of the business? ;-D
ETA... I do value and enjoy all of Skip's posts, of course. They are gold.
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 14:59:52.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 02:56:44 PM · #21 |
i gotta say that i agree with Skip.
$400 but don't lose the rights, i might do to keep a contact, but not like this on a repeat basis.
$400 + travel + rights i'd do given they know in advance it's an inconvenience as far as location, and i would give them exactly what they asked for: no post processing for fixing.
If they want PP it's an extra charge given they said up front they don't want/need it, and they're banking on him being professional enough to expect very little required PP which is both good (feather in your cap they think you're that good) and bad (they're going to expect flawless and shit on you if you don't produce, but at that price you're not motivated enough to do your top quality in terms of making sure everything is perfect setup-wise before starting shooting).
The great thing about emails is that they're directly quotable and not just "well, you told me i didn't have to do X, so i took you on your word". |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 02:58:11 PM · #22 |
You do have to judge the licensing value of your job. Not every picture is going to have potential for long term earnings.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2012 03:27:17 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You do have to judge the licensing value of your job. Not every picture is going to have potential for long term earnings. |
Not as typical stock, but as he pointed out the publisher (probably) intends to pass along (for a fee) the images to the companies mentioned in the magazine. The key component of skip's licensing terms was the one-time use granted; further use requires new terms/fees. If they want to function as a stock agency (sublicensing the photos) they should expect to pay royalties ...
Message edited by author 2012-12-18 15:28:07. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 03:48:05 PM · #24 |
I have a box of rocks.
I'm offering my services as a geologist. |
|
|
|
12/18/2012 03:51:58 PM · #25 |
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
|
|
