Photographing celebrities

<p>So I just recently bought tickets to watch Finger Eleven live at the Al House in Kingston Ontario. I struck up a conversation with the ticket seller and mentioned that I am a photographer. She then informed me that her photographer quit/fired/who cares, and they are looking for someone to take photos of the band after an interview for a magazine. She asked me if I would do it and of course I jumped right on it.<br>

So my question is what should I expect? I've never done this kind of shoot. Will I have much time? How many poses? These questions will be answered before the shoot but I just want a general opinion from someone who has "been there and done that" and their experiences.</p>

<p>Many thanks!<br>

Billy</p>

<p>For starters what is your arrangement with Finger Eleven? is it a work for hire? or something else?</p>

<p>Second, ask why her photographer quit/fired/who cares? Because it could affect your bottom line too.</p>

<p>Third, related to question one, determine who owns what, how and when the images will be used.</p>

<p>Fourth, assuming you've covered the above, you won't have time to pose them, specially if they're about to start. And usually photos taken during interviews are not the most flattering images you can get out of an artist. YMMV</p>

<p>Lastly, I hope you're not doing this for FREE.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lastly, I hope you're not doing this for FREE.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? If he is happy doing it for free, it shouldn't matter to you.</p>

<p>The photo is for a magazine not for the band. Someone from the magazine will conduct an interview and I will either 1. take photos during or 2. snap a quick pose after. I will know more if/when the magazine calls back.</p>

<p>I really don't have much info if any at all in regards to what is going to happen, time/place etc. All that will come to light if I get the call. What I need to know are other peoples experience with this type of thing.</p>

<p>Lastly I have no issues with doing this for free. If I get paid GREAT if not then this is a great opportunity to build off of. I am not in photography for the cash, my other business more than provides enough for me. I do this for the art and fun of it, paydays are just a bonus.</p>

<p>@Jeff: It does matter to me because every time someone offers to shoot something for free it sets a bad precedent to the next commercial photographer out there who makes a living out of this sort of gigs.</p>

<p>@William: Well good for you then if you don't care about the money. But think of this, the photographer of the Baby Chasing the Dollar bill album cover for Nirvana was only paid roughly $300. Never got any royalties nor credits after it became famous. Had he had his paper work in place he would still be cashing in to this day.</p>

<p>So yes, it does matter if you're shooting FREE or NOT.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>@Jeff: It does matter to me because every time someone offers to shoot something for free it sets a bad precedent to the next commercial photographer out there who makes a living out of this sort of gigs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not his job, or my job, to worry about what commercial photographers are making. This is a free market, there's no requirements. It's up to him, or me, or you, to do what we each want to do.</p>

<p>If they're looking for someone to shoot for free, they aren't going to hire a pro for a fee anyway. IMHO, it's up to the pro to convince potential clients of the benefits of paid work vs free work. If the free work turns out to be of poor quality, then they'll start paying for quality deliverables. If it consistently meets their needs, then it's a wise business decision for them.</p>

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5990272">Jay DeSimone</a>. Couldn't have said it better myself. But I will add that it's up to the amatuers to convince the client that the only difference between us and the photographer is they caught a break and managed to make a career out of it. Because that's the first thing I have learned about being one is: Put yourself out there, wether it be free or not and make a name for yourself. If you are any good the paying jobs will come.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> "It's not his job, or my job, to worry about what commercial photographers are making. This is a free market, there's no requirements. It's up to him, or me, or you, to do what we each want to do."</p></blockquote>

<p>Thanks Jeff! I couldn't agree more. So many photographers are so stuffy about the subject of photography. I'm not worried about any other photographers bottom line. Just mine. If I can make a career out of this WOOOHOO! But in the meatime taking photos is fun and the more experience the better!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure it's fine and dandy til you feel the same crunch that most photogs are experiencing now and then you'll feel stuffy too.</p>

<p>And lastly, thinking that you'll get more jobs as you get better is a FALLACY. Specially if people are accustomed to you shooting for FREE.</p>

<p>I do building and plumbing repairs and musical instrument amplification repairs for free for my friends. Should I stop doing this so I don't upset builders, plumbers and electronic repair technicians?!</p>

<p>Doing a favor for a friend is a little different than working for free for a magazine, IMHO. </p>

<p>It's not because either way, it should be of no concern to anyone else.</p>

<p>Steve there is a flaw in your comparison. For starters all the industries you've mentioned are regulated, the barrier of entry exists so no one can say overnight I am plumber and will charge xyz. And since its regulated there is no glut of plumbers, so the market can sustain one's business even if there are people like you who offer their expertise gratis.</p>

<p>In photography it's quite the opposite, there is a glut in photogs because there is no barrier of entry. Sure the entrants can shoot today for near to nothing costs but what if they do decide to go full time, how can they sustain their biz, if pretty much everyone expects to have their photos taken for free.</p>

<p>And if you read my post carefully, I was encouraging William to charge for his time and not do it for free. What's wrong with that?</p>

<p>Like I said, it's pretty easy to talk about free market and all that good stuff if you're not affected.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you read my post carefully, I was encouraging William to charge for his time and not do it for free. What's wrong with that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Except that when I asked why, you gave an answer that isn't particularly relevant. People get the lowest cost services that do the job. It's up to higher cost service providers to prove their value, not to tell others what to do.</p>

<p>Jeff, there is a big difference between low cost and free. If something has a cost associated to it, no matter how low, it gets valued. And the service provider can justify raising his value as he gets better. But if you offer it for free on the onset, no amount of talent can justify raising the value because it had no value in the first place.</p>

<p>And second, the OP asked for an opinion I gave mine. It's not what everyone wants to hear thus I get this reaction. </p>

<p>I think that I can appreciate what Marius is saying. Although I've only been shooting professionally on a limited basis going on two years, it feels almost full-time considering the work I put into all the attendant facets. I shoot for a popular weekly newspaper, and am also trying hard in the fine art area, plus personal work, sometimes professional, shooting musicians that I hope will lead to something, but if nothing else, is fun and interesting.</p>

<p>I imagine that these areas of photo I mention have always been tough. However, today, I think photography is more popular than ever, and I think this makes it tougher than ever for those of us who are very committed as I imagine Marius is.</p>

<p>The paper I shoot for- the only show in town as far as it being open to freelancers- is extremely cost-conscious. I know that some people submit to it for free. No matter the quality (sometimes good, sometimes not), or how banal the subject (often)- they will usually get several images published, even whole pages. Because I made it clear that I'd like to be paid for my work- even though the amounts are <em>small</em> no matter how one slices it- the most that they'll usually publish is two or three of mine. There were a couple of exceptions, primarily those where very little text was required.</p>

<p>Another example was an assignment to cover a crafts fair. This was a major regional event, drawing participants from about a 100 mile radius in an arts-rich area. The resulting images pleased the organizers to the extent that they licensed them for future promotional uses for this event. I was told by the organizer that in recent years, "friends/volunteer photographers" had covered the event with their new digital cameras, promising that they could do it, but produced disappointing results. This particular outcome was heartening, and the fee from them was twice what the paper would have paid, but this kind of job is fairly rare in my view. Perhaps this illustrates some of the things one must overcome in terms of ever getting established today- in a traditionally low paying field, to boot. Btw, the paper never published this piece nor paid me, although they'd approved it beforehand, and it was a lot of work. When I finally got up the nerve to ask, they told me that it "was ready to run". This was in November... So, in my limited experience, it's very tough out there and having these amateurs giving work away definitely contributes to this. Even if they eventually tire of their dalliance, who the hell can hang on to see what the long-term outcome will be?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"... For starters all the industries you've mentioned are regulated, the barrier of entry exists so no one can say overnight I am plumber and will charge xyz. And since its regulated there is no glut of plumbers, so the market can sustain one's business even if there are people like you who offer their expertise gratis.<br /> In photography it's quite the opposite, there is a glut in photogs because there is no barrier of entry. Sure the entrants can shoot today for near to nothing costs but what if they do decide to go full time, how can they sustain their biz, if pretty much everyone expects to have their photos taken for free..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there is merit to this.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve there is a flaw in your comparison. For starters all the industries you've mentioned are regulated, the barrier of entry exists so no one can say overnight I am plumber and will charge xyz.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It might be in your country.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>since its regulated there is no glut of plumbers, so the market can sustain one's business even if there are people like you who offer their expertise gratis. In photography it's quite the opposite, there is a glut in photogs because there is no barrier of entry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The distinction is irrelevant. People are free to do what they want unless the license requirement for bids ANY work in the field by unlicensed people such as practicing medicine or something. No one owes any photographers a living just like no one owns any licensed practitioners a living.. Choosing a profession involving an activity a lot of people can do and like to do is the photographer's problem.</p>

<p>Its reasonable to recommend people seek more worth for their talents than they may realize they have but, if they, wish to proceed nevertheless, its no one else's beeswax.</p>