Pricing - Home Exterior Landscape Photography

<p>Tried searching the forums and didn't come up with anything in the short time I have available to post.<br>

I've been asked to shoot home landscaping on an on-going basis for a local landscape design company and shot one property yesterday to see how it would go (I'm proficient with photography but have never set out specifically to promote myself with this niche). I and the client are satisfied with the images and we are negotiating what to charge and how. The business owner is an easy going and fair person who doesn't expect to pay craigslist prices for pro quality work. <br>

Q. Any photographers out there on these forums with experience in how to charge and bill for this type of work?<br>

<br />Shooting lasts 1-2 hrs depending on the size of the home plus a couple more hours of work in LR/PS at home. Cost of driving is a separate expense. <br>

I'm torn between going with a cut hourly rate (and choosing what the rate should be) versus setting a flat rate per home based on approximate size/scope of the job. Some jobs are basically document the work and get it done ASAP. The high end homes require much more time/work and gear (bringing strobes/modifiers etc).<br>

<br />Any help is appreciated. Thank you.</p>

 

<p>I don't see how you could shoot an interior in less than half a day lugging strobe equipment to and fro. I think it really depends on the client in my experience. When I shoot for architects, they realize the necessity of time and effort for proper lighting and proper equipment ... and don't mind paying what you deserve. Home contractors are a step down the notch, expect to pay for time worked. Real estate people are on the bottom rung, sorry to say, and want to dicker with your bill. Do this: bring along a couple strobes that have modifiers, solid tripod, wide lens for 90 degree capture, but see how much you can accomplish without fill. If it is a large home or requires lugging equip upstairs, double your estimate. Charge for post work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see how you could shoot an interior in less than half a day</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Where does it say he's shooting interiors?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Real estate people are on the bottom rung, sorry to say, and want to dicker with your bill.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've done a lot for real estate agents and found them all to be good people to work for. Not one has "dickered" with my bill. Maybe if you assume they aren't "bottom rung" you will have similar interactions.<br /><br>

<br>

To get back to the original question...it's hard to say without knowing what your market is like. Here in San Francisco, any kind of fixed or hourly rate will be higher than rural Arkansas, for example. Since there are obviously differences between the kinds of properties, an hourly rate that works in your market makes sense. Since some won't require much, set a reasonable minimum. One way to figure an hourly rate is to figure out how much the business owner will pay for the test shoot images and then calculate the hourly rate from that.</p>

<p>Then return in the evening if possible: exterior shots just at sunset, just after sunset and at night can be exquisite. Prepare for long exposures with sturdy tripod. As an added note, postwork programs have filters that recognize your lens and can correct for some whackiness. Generally you have to rework lines get that wobbly, at least with the Sigma 10-20 lens. </p>

<p>For better or worse, I've noticed a lot of real estate firms posting heavily HDR/tone mapped processed images of interiors/exteriors. Photographers I've talked with who specialize in this work tell me they typically charge $150-300 per location, are in and out in 45 minutes to an hour, sometimes much less. In one local case, the photographer and his wife work as a team, DSLR, tripod and a couple of lights. They have their routine down pat. It's a production, formula business. Likewise, the post processing is done quickly, all for web use, not fine art reproduction.</p>

<p>I think you have to focus, like other commenters have said, on production and streamlining... Personally, I'd go with a couple of flat rate packages depending upon property size/type then work on your workflow from start to finish to maximize your time...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photographers I've talked with who specialize in this work tell me they typically charge $150-300 per location</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe it was Tim Allen the comedian who had a great joke with the punch line "why do you listen to a shop teacher missing fingers"</p>

<p>-<br>

Not sure why you would treat a landscape design firm any different that a traditional architectural design firm?</p>

<p>Lately I've been looking at pricing on a per image basis with either a minimum set number or having the first view at each location cost enough to justify scheduling that location. One of the benefits is that with these new shopping cart websites you can let them pay with a credit card before they get to download the image file. To be upfront I have not done the pay at download time a lot (only a few times) mainly because I don't want to lose the transaction fee, but with an ongoing project could be a time/stress saver. Again I would think anywhere from $200 up per image for a corporate marketing licensing would be fair. Any thoughts on this?</p>

<p>Small rant not aimed at anyone: This whole <em>let's charge based on hourly time involve. </em>OK fine then charge for the time loading your vehicle, driving there, waiting for the sun - cloud - worker to finish their quick touch up job, driving back, unloading, downloading your cards, processing the files, uploading the files, touching up the broken sprinkler head that makes the company look bad, upload the edited files, etc..</p>

<p>1 bedroom condo, where the commission is low, the realtor is not going to want to "waste" the money on even better photos than these. She was thrilled with these, as they are a lot better than what she did with her own Rebel and 18-55 on full auto. The camera was fooled by the windows of course and the lens is not wide enough.</p>