kayumangi

<p>Shooting time is just one piece of the puzzle. Since you said you've been doing this for a few years then should have a fairly good idea of your operational costs and COGS. Break them down hourly then you have your baseline hourly rate.</p>

<p>Shooting time is one thing, but editing and consultation time is another. And must be factored in towards your final price. Assuming you're very proficient with post processing you could say for every hour shot you process them under 2 hrs. Your baseline for the photography part is 3 hrs.</p>

<p>If your baseline hourly rate is say $50 it means that you should at least charge 3hrs x $50 = $150 to break even. If you've been shooting for 10 hrs then you must charge at least $1500 just cover for your time. If you spend time consulting with them then you have to factor that in too. The point is every time you do something for a client it has to be factored in and its your choice if you are going to charge for it or not, the important thing is you're aware of how much time you're really working for them.</p>

<p>As for the image disc, if you really want to include the CD then price it accordingly. Say for example in your non-wedding experience you charge $200 for each 16x20 print (the max size you can print from a 3mb image jpeg) and you deliver 100 jpegs then your image disc has to be at least $2000. Because that's the most you stand to loose once you give them the cd, nobody orders prints once they have the image disc.</p>

<p>Crazy prices huh? you can do it the proper way or you can it the charitable way, it's your choice. But do remember real photographers don't just pick out prices out of thin air, contrary to what some people think.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess it depends. If you're not doing proofing with them then you really can't say which photos they'll order just like what Melissa says.</p>

<p>But in my case, I do proofing usually at the clients home with a projector. So I can suggest photos that better suits their wall and at the appropriate size, usually its 24x30, occasionally some 30x40.</p>

<p>Most cases they opt for couples portraits done either before the ceremony or during the formals. So far I have only one photo ordered on a reception but that was taken from a portrait station with a custom-made backdrop.</p>

<p>Here's the thing you have a fantastic camera body but you're thinking of using a so-so wide angle.</p>

<p>I say, sell the 5D2 and get a used 5D1 and then buy a Canon 16-35 f/2.8 Mark 1</p>

<p>Or you can always rent, since you said you're already booked so you know the dates on when you need the lens. At least that way you can try out the different brands.</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>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>

<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>@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>

<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>

<p>The idea is worthwhile if you can guarantee quality targeted leads. Meaning as a photographer I can fill-in a customer profile I want and I only get those customers. If its just a massive open-for-all bidding I'd stay away because a lot of the other sites are already doing that and they only charge $1 per lead or are FREE To their featured advertisers.</p>

<p>Build the database first and offer a trial rather than charging right away, no one knows you why should they spend money on you.</p>

<p>Marcus, question is without sitting down with the client and going over each image, how sure are you that what you picked as the BEST is REALLY the BEST one for them?</p>

<p>BEST in photography is very subjective because its an emotional thing rather than something logical. That's why, if you MUST ABSOLUTELY give the images, then I say give them all that is technically acceptable then let them decide, unless they paid you to explicitly do that for them.</p>

<p>Here's the thing I don't give any images anymore except for commercial work where I charge by file and a limited period usually 3 yrs.</p>

<p>If you must give the images for whatever reason then just remove the technically unacceptable, let them decide what is good or not. I mean, are you getting paid to decide for them? second, are you going to be paid after they made the selection? do you expect to get any print orders after you give the images?</p>

<p>What's written in your contract?</p>

<p>Second, just because an image file were saved via high compression doesn't mean they're unusable, the question should be are they high res or low res? </p>

<p>If the ceiling is white or off-white you can bounce your lights from there. If the color sucks or the surface is uneven get a big white reflector and have an assistant hold it for you and bounce off of there.</p>

<p>The key is getting the biggest source possible.</p>

<p>You've learned that your clients print the images from the CD and yet you still want to offer an image disc? Isn't that like shooting your own foot? That's a lost profit generating op right there.</p>

<p>Second, if you charged extra to edit and color-correct all photos then you're contractually obligated to do so. Let me rephrase, when you quote a price on anything be it a wedding or a portrait session you must include not just shooting times but as well as editing times. So only you can answer what you should do with the images or not.</p>

<p>Third, Online Proofing is debatable some folks swear by it some people say it doesn't work. I'm on the latter camp. I prefer to proof with clients face-to-face if possible. Because the more emotionally involved they are the likelihood they will order what I present.</p>

<p>Like what Robert said nothing wrong with your setup specially since you have a flash. The important thing is to get a backup body because you'll never know if something happens to your 50D.</p>

<p>If budget is tight you could always rent one there a bunch of places you could rent a decent body. One of them is lensrentals dot com</p>

<p>You do realize that you answered your own question. If it's not your standard practice then don't, specially since you've already fulfilled everything contractually. </p>

<p>Alternately, you could be upfront with them, you could say you've archived the raw images and it will require time to go over each image and process them again. Then quote them an amount, if they are happy with the amount then proceed and cull those images again.</p>

<p>Since its your first time, I say shoot with you got because you're more familiar with your existing equipment.</p>

<p>If you learn how to shoot with a flash (both on-camera as well as off-camera), your Kit lens as well as your 50mm should be sufficient to produce some decent images.</p>

<p>IMO, you should only get new gear if your existing ones have surpassed your needs, based from your post I can deduce that you've barely exploited their full potential.</p>

<p>It's a wedding so IT IS technically a BIG FAMILY PORTRAIT session. What's there to argue? I don't understand your frustration.</p>

<p>Unless you are charging them cheaply and thus you feel you are overworked for such small compensation. Is that case?</p>

<p>I don't understand. if you say you are used to dimly lit gyms then why underexposed images? And just because there are no sufficient walls to bounce to, you could at least fuff your light (set your flash to manual at a higher power output and point it away from your subject)</p>

<p>And even if the power output from your flash was constant, lets just say it wasn't adjusting correctly, you could have compensated by either slowing down your shutter speed to help your lighting situation by adding more ambient light or vary the distance between camera and subject.</p>

<p>Also, is there any particular reason why you were stuck at f/8?</p>

<p>Anyhow, if you're getting inconsistent results from your Sunpak maybe its defective and needs replacement with a better speed light like a SB800 or you could always learn manual flash photography.</p>

<p>The Sunpak 622 is more than sufficient for the scenario you've just mentioned. You just didn't know how to use it =)</p>

<p>If you're at a loss google Strobist Lighting 101 or visit this link<br>

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</p>

<p>I totally agree the Canon 85mm f/1.8 suggestion.</p>

<p>And since you're using a crop sensor (7D) I say sell your kit lens as well as your Canon 50mm 1.8 and get a Canon 35 f/2 instead. You'd get better results with that focal lenght and the lens opening is fast enough for most low light situations.</p>

<p>Having another speedlight wouldn't hurt either, in fact if you learn to how use manual flash you could buy 2-3 non-TTL speed lights like a Canon 540ez or a Vivitar 285hv, for the price of one 580ex II.</p>