Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 82 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Re: Recent Professional Works 2  (Read 245908 times)
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 498


WWW
« Reply #860 on: October 31, 2013, 08:31:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Yelhsa:

That is right. Ideally one would charge for the use of images and concede rights to certain media and time usage and based on the media's circulation / reach and the time used and calculate cost based on that. I think there are even tables for this.

I do adjust my fee depending on the usage and scope of the project or campaign the images will be a part of but my client has to at least cover the actual production and post-production costs + my fee of the shoot. (Cost + Fee).

I honestly do not have the time or the resources to monitor the usage of the images I produce for my clients. A lot of the time the client does not even have the entire media plan set in stone when the images are produced, just a general idea. I do specify the intended use on all my invoices. If by chance I see that they deviated a lot from that and / or the ad agency uses the images for another product / brand or anything else then I might confront the ad agency or client. But in the 10 years that I have been in business that has never happened.

With stock or stock type photography then it is another story since you basically run with all production costs (or the stock agency) and the stock agency manages the images for you. Also a lot of editorial and wedding photographers also put their images in their stock photography agency of choice. They mostly work for a fee and then make up their income with the stock sales.

Basically there is not one clear cut business model for everything it depends on the situation and market.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 08:34:41 AM by Ken R » Logged
Yelhsa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #861 on: October 31, 2013, 09:13:39 AM »
ReplyReply

.. but my client has to at least cover the actual production and post-production costs + my fee of the shoot. (Cost + Fee).
Does he or does he just need to pay you enough for 'the use of your images' to cover all of this ?
Because there is a big difference between asking someone to pay for 'the use of your work' and asking them to pay you 'to do the work' for them.

Anyway, it's sounds like you don't have time for any of this, so I'll leave it at that.

Cheers
Ashley.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 09:44:14 AM by Yelhsa » Logged

JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 728



« Reply #862 on: October 31, 2013, 10:36:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Does he or does he just need to pay you enough for 'the use of your images' to cover all of this ?
Because there is a big difference between asking someone to pay for 'the use of your work' and asking them to pay you 'to do the work' for them.

Anyway, it's sounds like you don't have time for any of this, so I'll leave it at that.

Cheers
Ashley.


My thoughts.

Being that this is the medium format forum, I assume that those who post and follow this section are either those at the top or those who aspire to be there.  If this is the case (for anyone), my question is can you really afford to produce images any less than your best? 

A few years ago, a very smart consultant told me that a potential client will always judge you on your worse images.  You could have some of the best work out there, but if a high end prospect sees a shitty set of images you shot (especially recently), none of that other work will matter in his eyes.  So, for my business development, I never will shoot less than the best I can, and most of the time I am still not completely happy with the images I produce, because there is always something else I could have done.  (How much sleep have I lost to this?)

Does this mean that you will make less than you should on a project, maybe, or maybe you just don't shoot those jobs?  So IMO, charge like Ashley does and have faith more licensing will be bought later on (happens at least 50% of the time for me) or let them go.  Either choice can be a hard pill to swallow sometimes, but in the end, most clients like this dont pay well anyway.  And if not doing this job means you'll have less money but also one less set of shitty images out there for the high end prospects (the ones who pay well) to see and degrade you with, then I would let that money go. 

But anyway, here is an image of a crappy lunch room/hallway in an township utilities garage.  Not the best space out there, but hey, they needed it documented, for, you know ... marketing stuff.  I used three strobes and two hot lights, and they were very pleased I gave it the same attention as the nicer spaces in the other building. 
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #863 on: October 31, 2013, 11:36:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Came across this on the web. Seems like something to come handy next time a client asks you to do it cheaper. Original source hereSmiley
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #864 on: October 31, 2013, 11:42:05 AM »
ReplyReply

.. would have said: "Why are you asking ?" - and then listened to what he had to say.

Because it's sounds to me, like he may have had something interesting to say to you here - in regards to how you could actually charged them more.

 Lips sealed







He actually meant if I went that direction next time would I charge full tilt?   Me I'd probably try to find a good middle ground.

Ashley, you and I have had this discussion before and I respect your business model.  I also own my images, but honestly no client that runs a dedicated still and motion campaign that takes 6 months to complete is going to be happy if I keep hitting them with extra usage because some in store or product layed on a shelf for an extra month, just like they assume I won't take their imagery and sell it into stock, for anyone, even though I can.

My goal is to improve, to work, to stay busy (because I like hard work) and be paid well.  I never have a master plan but I do shake it up.  Now I've added a space in London (where I am today) and I love it.

It's opened up new business and a  new life experience, put me closer to family and allowed for a different thought process.  I just had european clients in last week for an edit.  I flew in from LA to meet them.  I could have squeezed them for airfare and transfers, but it was my decision to be here and make it easier for them.

Good work, convenience and lack of small time bullshit always pays off long term.

But understand I do appreciate your business model and if it works for you, keep on cooking.

IMO

BC

Logged

Yelhsa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #865 on: October 31, 2013, 11:59:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know James - but sometimes it pays to ask a question and then listen, rather than to talk.
So that's really all I'm saying - because it may have been interesting to hear what he had to say here, since he was obviously questioning you about this.
Logged

Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


« Reply #866 on: November 02, 2013, 09:33:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Photographer's business models can be such a source of aggravation for clients as well as other photographers.  I have no desire to police the usage of my images, I want to spend my time making more of them.

I think in these regards I'm fortunate to be working (for the most part) in the niche of architecture.  Residual usage rights drive architects nuts.  My fee model is based upon a day rate.  Within that rate I included a license for unlimited usage of the images.  That dayrate is probably higher than a lot of my competition, but my clients seem to be happy to pay it and not have to worry about when or where they use the images.

Also, my clients usually have no problem with stock sales.  In fact, most of my stock sales are referred by the original client.

So, I make a lot of images and I make a nice living.  I really don't spend any of my time calculating and chasing usage fees.  My clients are happy.  Life is simple and good.  This business model may not work for everyone, it may even piss some photographers off but it's been pretty sound for me over the last 20 years.

CB
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #867 on: November 02, 2013, 12:13:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Photographers don't have unions, collective bargaining power, or paid advocates in every nation's Capitol.

Photographers are just hired hands and usage has always been a sticky subject to discuss, but the real honest to god truth is nothing matters unless you turn a profit.

Doesn't mean that usage isn't a consideration, in Chris' case he uses it to bargain for more money, in Ashely's case he uses it to bargain for more money, they just come about it from different angles.

In my case we're a bottom line group.  Pay us we'll play, but we have a number we have to hit and getting rich off of one gig isn't the plan.

Doing a lot of gigs is.


IMO

BC


Photographer's business models can be such a source of aggravation for clients as well as other photographers.  I have no desire to police the usage of my images, I want to spend my time making more of them.

I think in these regards I'm fortunate to be working (for the most part) in the niche of architecture.  Residual usage rights drive architects nuts.  My fee model is based upon a day rate.  Within that rate I included a license for unlimited usage of the images.  That dayrate is probably higher than a lot of my competition, but my clients seem to be happy to pay it and not have to worry about when or where they use the images.

Also, my clients usually have no problem with stock sales.  In fact, most of my stock sales are referred by the original client.

So, I make a lot of images and I make a nice living.  I really don't spend any of my time calculating and chasing usage fees.  My clients are happy.  Life is simple and good.  This business model may not work for everyone, it may even piss some photographers off but it's been pretty sound for me over the last 20 years.

CB
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 09:10:39 PM by bcooter » Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #868 on: November 02, 2013, 01:40:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Photographer's business models can be such a source of aggravation for clients as well as other photographers.  I have no desire to police the usage of my images, I want to spend my time making more of them.

I think in these regards I'm fortunate to be working (for the most part) in the niche of architecture.  Residual usage rights drive architects nuts.  My fee model is based upon a day rate.  Within that rate I included a license for unlimited usage of the images.  That dayrate is probably higher than a lot of my competition, but my clients seem to be happy to pay it and not have to worry about when or where they use the images.

Also, my clients usually have no problem with stock sales.  In fact, most of my stock sales are referred by the original client.

So, I make a lot of images and I make a nice living.  I really don't spend any of my time calculating and chasing usage fees.  My clients are happy.  Life is simple and good.  This business model may not work for everyone, it may even piss some photographers off but it's been pretty sound for me over the last 20 years.

CB

I tend to be in the same boat Chris.  Direct usage billing your get me tossed out on my ear but then again the usage for most of the work I produce has a limited shelf life due to model year introductions.  I ditched the day rate model years ago because the clients just kept adding more and more shots to the list.  Its all piece rate now for me.  X shot costs X Y shot cost Y and so on. Post to my taste is included. I have some ala carte billing points to cover unusual situations but really they don't crop up very often.  Besides, if I have perfected my methods so that I produce the images in less time, why should I be penalized?

RV photography is a pretty tiny niche. My clients are generally happy and keep calling me year after year.  Not counting when the Marketing manager gets fired or takes another job and the new person like some other photography. Sometime I win some of those back again Smiley

But I work all I want and I earn a very good living.  Like you, no need to complicate it.   Not at this stage of my career anyways.

Which brings up another question ..off topic.  I'm 61 this year and I'm looking out over the retirement landscape.  It just kind of hit me this year that there will be some sort of end in sight someday.  I'm still capable of doing the work ( I work with just my wife so I'm the grunt too) but I'm trying to decide if I really ready to quit, or at least in a few years.  So how long is everyone looking to work?

Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Scott Hargis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 194



WWW
« Reply #869 on: November 03, 2013, 10:19:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm doing a hybrid model: day rate + a "per image" fee. This keeps the shot list reasonable, and also allows me to do really small jobs, with maybe only 2 or 3 photos, without losing money.
Like many of the other architectural photographers here, I'm granting very broad licensing to my architect/design/build clients. Perpetuity, broadcast & display, web, print collateral, local advertising. I exclude National Print, editorial, and of course third-party usage, where I make a lot of money. I do lots of secondary licenses. When you're shooting for someone's portfolio, it's difficult to impose a time limit. I wouldn't accept it if I were on the other side.

Straight-ahead advertising work, on the other hand, has more of a tradition of more controlled rights-management, and I guess I'd be happy enough to play by those rules, if I were in that game.
Logged

<a href="http://www.scotthargisphoto.com">Website</a>
Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


« Reply #870 on: November 03, 2013, 02:17:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.  My clients all know about how many shots we can get in a day.  For interiors it's usually 4, 5 if we have great ambient.  I've had people come at me asking for much more (as they're accustomed to photographers not taking much time with the shots).  I just explain my process and they usually cut the shot list in half.

I do have a per shot cost that I call "Capture / Processing / Retouching" which also dissuades the "All you can eat" mindset.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2013, 02:37:04 PM by Chris Barrett » Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #871 on: November 03, 2013, 04:34:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.  My clients all know about how many shots we can get in a day.  For interiors it's usually 4, 5 if we have great ambient.  I've had people come at me asking for much more (as they're accustomed to photographers not taking much time with the shots).  I just explain my process and they usually cut the shot list in half.

I do have a per shot cost that I call "Capture / Processing / Retouching" which also dissuades the "All you can eat" mindset.

Mine do to, now. I'm happy to shoot as much as I can each day, because each image adds directly to the invoice, but there is a practical limit.  That said, not all shots are major productions.  A shot of a pantry stocked with stuff takes a lot less time that a full interior for example.  So a good day might be 5 images or it might be 20.  I also bill  a "file fee". Its kind of a hold over from the transition days from film to digital and then it was a way to counter the, "its digital it does not cost you anything" mentality.  I always equated it to the drum scan and proof fees they paid with film.  Its a substantial chunk of change each so I'm not really that hip on eliminating it. 
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 728



« Reply #872 on: November 03, 2013, 05:44:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.  My clients all know about how many shots we can get in a day.  For interiors it's usually 4, 5 if we have great ambient.  I've had people come at me asking for much more (as they're accustomed to photographers not taking much time with the shots).  I just explain my process and they usually cut the shot list in half.

I do have a per shot cost that I call "Capture / Processing / Retouching" which also dissuades the "All you can eat" mindset.

This can be a make or break with some firms.  I tell people anywhere from 5 to 7, depending on the interiors, how much staging is involved, if it will just my assistant and I or people from the firm will be there (which is how I like it).  

Although some firms like the 15 to 20 images in a day.  I met with a firm in the beginning of the year and they asked how many I could get in a day.  I said 5 to 7; they said that they usually get 12 to 15.  I asked why they would need so many.  They said they like to tell the entire story and some of the rooms would be small side rooms anyway.  I gave them a sample estimate and I never heard back from them.  I finally got a hold of them three months later.  They said the other guy priced out 15 images for about 30% less.  

I had found that I would spend more time in total making an HDR image look to the same standards as if I lit the space.  So to shoot 15 images in a day and than spend all that time in post and charge less for it makes no sense to me.  This is especially the case when I am always asked by the highest end clients if I light my interior images.  It is kind of a "your book looks great closed, so please give me a reason to open it."

Speaking of lighting, there was a good amount of lighting in this image.  The image looked a little rough in raw with no adjustments, which made me not too excited.  Now that it is done, I'm digging it; client really digs it too.  
« Last Edit: November 03, 2013, 05:46:41 PM by JoeKitchen » Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #873 on: November 03, 2013, 10:16:32 PM »
ReplyReply

A few recents, good to be shooting boats again.  34', and 31' boats shot in the factory





« Last Edit: November 03, 2013, 10:27:26 PM by Craig Lamson » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #874 on: November 04, 2013, 02:59:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Wish I could do that, Craig; probably find myself a new career in yacht brokerage. Plenty of big boats around the Med, but my eyes popped when I saw the ones tied up at Abu Dhabi yesterday as I watched the F1 race on tv. I'd thought Monaco was something else.

Rob C
Logged

Yelhsa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #875 on: November 04, 2013, 04:31:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Recent published work...


.. because they paid for this...

... which is all that I asked them to pay me for - as that's all they (like most people who ask me to produce some images for them to use) wanted to paid me for.

So the fee (which was agreed to beforehand for the use of my images after I had created them) was therefore based on the above being the agreement - which I then signed and provided them with along with my images for them to use... as seen here.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 11:08:26 AM by Yelhsa » Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 910



WWW
« Reply #876 on: November 04, 2013, 11:44:01 AM »
ReplyReply

as above. i use the AOP standard forms slightly modified.
watertight paperwork has saved my bacon many times, when clients have gone into liquidation or or accounts have moved etc.
if you set yourself up to be shafted you will be. if you are smart this only happens once. Grin
Logged
alan_b
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #877 on: November 04, 2013, 02:02:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Some interiors:
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 02:18:19 PM by alan_b » Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



WWW
« Reply #878 on: November 04, 2013, 11:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

A couple of new images from travels in 2006 to Colorado



Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #879 on: November 05, 2013, 05:31:48 AM »
ReplyReply

A couple of new images from travels in 2006 to Colorado





Those are really nice and you are lucky you got them in 2006. Lots of the pines are gone or dead due to a bug infection.  Even Rockey Mountain National Park looks pretty bad these days.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 82 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad