Musician requesting photos of live performance

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>So I was recently asked by a model I used to shoot to shoot a live performance of his band. Now, I'm not sure how to say that I'm going to charge for this request as during the conversation when I was asked I said "I'm interested to do it and what time and what does he need". And then his reply is that he wanted live performance shots, sound checks, behind the scenes and some post party stuff. And then that's it. Now, I wasn't sure if he was expecting it to be free or not? Or is this the time I should tell him about my fee? <br>

Also, how much do you charge for those?</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>Thanks guys!</p>

<p>Don't ask us, ask the individual. Or better yet tell him that you are going to charge. As to what you charge that is entirely up to you based on the amount of work and how you value your services.</p>

<p>Yeah I'm planning to do that, I was just wondering if this would be the right time to tell him my rates. As in the first few exchange it seems like he thought it would be free.</p>

<p>Do you pay him to model for you? If so, that's a great conversation opener with regard to your fees for photography.</p>

<p>Well, it was someone else who asked him to model for an item. I was the shooter at that time, that's how I knew him. And I believe he didn't get paid.</p>

<p>Did <strong><em>you</em></strong> get paid for the model shoot? Have you ever worked for this guy for free? In short has anything happened to lead him to believe that you photograph for free?</p>

<p>For that shoot, to answer the first question, I wasn't paid for it but he never knew anything about my transaction with the one who hired him. And I have never worked with him since that shoot. </p>

<p>Have you shot live performances before? Where are some pix. As someone who does this all the time, I can probably give you a good idea on it, but I'd have to see some photos first.</p>

<p>Figure out how much time you will spend shooting the job, what your expenses will be, and what you value your services at by the hour. Contact the customer with your quote and have him sign your contract. In your contract detail the terms for your fees, how you will be paid and when, and what your obligations are regarding the prints and ownership of the work. Be sure to have duplicates or triplicates of bodies, flashes, batteries, etc., with you in the event of equipment failure. Rent what you don't already own (expenses). </p>

 

<p>Hey Jeff, So that's my problem, this will be my first. I usually do studio and wedding. And since he knew me from before he thought of asking me I guess. </p>

<p>So if it's your first, it's worth knowing that live performance can be problematic, due to lighting, and it might be good to do that part for free and charge for off-stage shooting, you will have to find out from him if he's expecting to pay. It's hard to make money from shooting live shows in any case, I do it and get other paid work like band portraits, CD covers, etc. through it.</p>

<p>Event photography and stage photography are <em>nothing</em> like studio work. They require a different set of skills. If you have no experience, get some, or let the guy know that this is your first effort.</p>

<p>When this guy approached you to shoot his band, did you mention to him that you'd not done any photography of that type before? Is he going to be reliant on you getting it right?</p>

<p>David, well, I've done a fashion show (it's for a local organization) he was in a couple years before, and the next one after that. I guess he assumed It'll be the same deal.<br>

Jeff, you're probably right regarding the band portraits. I'll probably just recoup my expenses if in case he decides to get me for that. <br>

Gary, Thanks for the input. I'll probably end up getting more experience for now.</p>

<p>Not that you need another opinion but I agree that in this case you probably shouldn't charge. I was shooting some live music last night (pro bono) and it's very rewarding when you nail a shot. I'll be doing it again for sure. Luckily I could get close to the stage.</p>

<p>Yo Karim, so, did you ever use your own lights just for some background rim lighting? Or did you just use the lights on the stage? I have a 24 - 70 mm on a d300, not sure if that will be enough? or should i rent a d700 to better compensate for the darkness? And will I need a wide angle?</p>

I never bring lights. That is not a

prescription, but it's how I roll. I use

what is there. And I am not stingy with

the shutter button. :-)

 

D300? Hmmm... If you're happy with it

at ISO 3200, okay. But not all noise is

created equal. I love the noise from the

Leia M8. The D300's noise doesn't

seem objectionable IIRC. D700 at 6400

is quite good. Compare at

dpreview.com.

 

Even on a D300, 24mm is wide

enough. But you want at least 90mm -

and that is assuming you can get close

to the stage. I was at the stage's edge.

I was just content with a 90mm on the

M8 and very happy with a 50-135mm

on the NEX. Perhaps I could have

used a 180mm with the NEX for a

couple of shots.

 

The good thing about SLR lenses is

that they're good and cheap. Test for

sharpness wide-open if you can. You

will be disappointed with a lot of fast

lenses that aren't made by Leica. But

you'll also love the many bargains out

there.

 

I haven't looked at last night's photos

yet but I had the NEX at ISO 1600,

shooting at f/3.5 and 1/40. The M8 was

about the same but a shorter shutter

speed at f/2. I found a shutter speed

that worked and set it manually. The

lights moved around but they didn't

change too much in intensity.

<blockquote>

<p>24mm is wide enough. But you want at least 90mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I do music shoots every single week. I never use a long lens. Close to the stage, there's no way it's useful. The only time I use a long lens is when there is a balcony I can shoot from. And 24mm may not be wide enough. I sometimes use a 17mm.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You will be disappointed with a lot of fast lenses that aren't made by Leica.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Quite possibly the biggest nonsense I've read here in a while. There are plenty of fast lenses that work well. I do magazine covers, ads, PR shoots, plenty of published stuff without a Leica lens.<br>

<br>

Here's an example, this was just a few nights ago. No Leica lenses, no long lens, just a good zoom and an understanding of where to be and when to shoot. The latter two are far more important than any of this equipment fetish. http://spirer.com/gcapril2013/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Close to the stage, there's no way it's useful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally respect the style and approach of other photographers, and I'm very glad that we're all different (I assume the OP agrees). But I have noticed on one or two occasions that when theatre photography is brought up, some others assume that it's quite natural to use lenses like a 35/1.4 or something. I've never understood that. I cannot see any use in a wide-angle - apart from a basic establishing shot. And of course I have taken photos of a stage before the actors appear on it. If I didn't have a wide-angle with me I wouldn't be bothered. But if I didn't have a telephoto or long zoom, I could not do the job. You may as well ask me to shoot with Kodachrome 25. (I say this mostly for the consideration of the OP - not because I'm trying to change anyone's mind).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There are plenty of fast lenses that work well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well or excellently? I'm not saying that we should all buy fast Leica lenses (because the cost is not always justifiable; and I find the shallow DOF not helpful). But if you want the best f/1.4 lenses, you're going to buy Leica or Zeiss. Not that other manufacturers make crappy lenses (actually they do, but rarely). From what I've seen, Nikon's 135/2 is passable, but its 200/2 is wonderful (and excellent) when you compare both wide-open. There are lots of disappointing lenses that can do a good job in certain circumstances. And, as I said, there are plenty of bargains (a few still unrecognized by most).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do magazine covers, ads, PR shoots, plenty of published stuff without a Leica lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. But even with a Leica lens you'd be methodical and make sure that the client is getting a decent image. And some of the greatest (or most celebrated) photos ever taken are blurry, poorly focused, poorly exposed and grainy. Perhaps too much in some cases, but the events have happened and the photos have been taken.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I've never understood that. I cannot see any use in a wide-angle - apart from a basic establishing shot</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I provided a link. Every photo in there is shot between 24mm and 50mm. Anything closer and you get a tight head shot and remove any sense of what's going on. Look at the photos in the link. Far more information in the photos than the talk.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But even with a Leica lens you'd be methodical</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

People are either methodical or they're not. Lenses don't change people's personalities.</p>

This is really hilarious, the thread goes from what seems to be an amateur level question on what to charge a band

member to needing a disgustiingly overpriced Leica 35mm 1.4 to get a close stage shot, LOL!

 

I don't shoot bands but I do shoot tons of corporate and politcal stuff in similar light...for a living and as a former owner of

a Leica 35mm 1.4 ASPH, I can tell you with certainty that my Nikon 35mm 1.4G easily matched my long gone Leica

35mm 1.4. I can also tell you that for the kind of shoot you are talking about, I have used everything from a pole mounted

D800 / fisheye to shooting through a crowd 70-200.

 

A real professional works the shot to the point that the gear is second nature and concert light is usually good enough for

400 speed film let alone most digital gear. And come to think of it, while shooting a personal project a few years ago I

covered David Cook, Massive Attack & Duran Duran with Kodachrome 64 and 200 for what that is worth.

 

Bottom line, I don't care who modeled for who, what cookie was given to the doorman, blah, blah, blah, I come right out of

the gate asking what does the person need in terms of coverage and rights and charge accordingly.

<blockquote>

<p>This is really hilarious, the thread goes from what seems to be an amateur level question on what to charge a band member to needing a disgustiingly overpriced Leica 35mm 1.4 to get a close stage shot, LOL!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I come right out of the gate asking what does the person need in terms of coverage and rights and charge accordingly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. <br>

The OP doesn't need a lecture on what to charge for and what not to charge for based on his previous experience shooting similar events. He is a photographer who has been approached by a potential client based on his past work with that client. He surely knows what lies ahead and isn't shying from the work. He just wanted advice on what to charge and when he should breach the subject. He will sink or swim based on his own merit like we all did.</p>

<p>@Daniel</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what does the person need in terms of coverage and rights and charge accordingly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok now that's what I need. Now since I've decided to do this pro bono right now, how do you think I should approach this? Any thoughts? As I feel like this will be used for an organization website (not entirely sure) as he wanted me to shoot soundchecks and after party ish.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>He will sink or swim based on his own merit like we all did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Word</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Now since I've decided to do this pro bono right now, how do you think I should approach this? Any thoughts?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Write up a contract, with a fee that seems appropriate. Live music shoots pay very little, I would put $100 in for that and an hourly charge that makes sense for you for the rest. Then put in a clause that waives the fee for "marketing promotion." Then you have not established yourself as doing work for nothing, but you have acknowledged that you don't have enough experience and will use the photos to help with future work.<br>

<br>

I learned this from a contract with Microsoft - they wrote the cost of some early release software down to nothing with a variety of "marketing" kickbacks. The price never changed, just what was paid, so nobody could say that they were offering "free" software.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is really hilarious</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see it as hilarious. In fact I think the OP can now see that there are at least two approaches to shooting live music. I am not only confident with my approach but I am happy that others have their favourite approaches. Further, the OP asked me a question and I answered it. If I am the cause of thread derailment, I apologize to the OP and the moderator.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can tell you with certainty that my Nikon 35mm 1.4G easily matched my long gone Leica 35mm 1.4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way? And do all Nikkors match or out-perform Leicas?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I covered David Cook, Massive Attack & Duran Duran with Kodachrome 64 and 200</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wish I had that much light to work with. Actually, I don't mind, as I love the atmosphere of low ambient light.</p>