mark_davidson1

When asked what I charge for interior and exterior photography I always say "As much as possible". It is a joke but not much of one as we all try to charge as much as possible. The real issue is that we all compare ourselves (some more, some less) to others. What some guy charges is often the benchmark for what we think we should charge. IMO offering different levels of quality is a destructive move in that you are implicitly saying "I know how to make this better but you are cheap so I will cr@pify this photo". Offer the same quality but vary the quantity. E.G. offer a basic shoot at $x with y number of images delivered. Then offer higher volumes for additional cost. It costs you almost the same amount of time to make poor photos than it does to make good ones. The problem is markets vary widely and some markets will not support anything but the most basic price points. I am fortunate that I have spent time in the business building up a client base that wants what I make. For me, many of the jobs I get are interesting buildings that make me happy to photograph. Sometimes not so much. However, I charge a basic fee and deliver a set number of images. I always try to make the images "magazine quality" as the properties are often published. Some are residences featured in magazines or for sale. Others are commercial businesses using the images in a promotional campaign. I also get a lot of follow on sales from vendors and contractors. Yes, it takes time to get those clients but they wont look at you if your portfolio has indifferent photos commissioned by a cheap realtor. My first jobs were all starter homes being marketed by a cheap developer. I was not too experienced but I killed myself learning lighting, composition and PP. Those early jobs got me referrals that still make money for me today. I do not shoot video or virtual tours. I explain that I spent 30 years learning still photography to offer the quality they want. I am not about to wave a camera around and make poor video for them. If they have a quality project they need to hire a quality video outfit. If you start as the cheap guy it is very hard to be the expensive guy.

A couple of very good points have been made here. Possibly the most important one is not to try to evaluate the price by what you think is expensive. Most of us think a $4.50 coffee is expensive . Your client is a corporate entity. As such, you have (in theory) professionals accustomed to purchasing professional products with other people's money. They choose vendors to make them look good to their bosses. Providing great work and advice on a job they may not have much expertise at is enormously valuable to them. $60,000 for the job is perfectly reasonable for the reasons others have pointed out. Just as one hamburger maybe $6, ordering one for everybody in Baltimore gets expensive. The issue here is not the individual price but rather the quantity the client is asking. In fact maybe they REALLY want all 150 buildings photographed. Or maybe not. You can find that out. A couple of years ago my landlord asked me to photograph all his properties in our area. I looked at his shot list and gave him a quote of $17,000. I estimated it would take 4 days to shoot with x images delivered. Another friend was also asked to bid and he quoted $24,000. I got the job. I was happy and so was he. I bid jobs on a combination of time, travel, quantity of images desired, and usage. All jobs are different. The worst is a day rate quote without any modifiers for quantity and usage. IOW Real Estate photography where prices are quoted by the house or square foot. Even if you are a beginner you have to charge the right price. Doctors come in all types but they are all expensive.

<p>The OP wanted to save weight.<br> My vote goes for the Sony 6300 and a few lenses for the balance of IQ and weight. Not the best range of native lenses but the best IQ body in that size.<br> Next I would choose a GX-8 or the next OMD EM5 . Both solid performers with a great lens range and real weight advantages.</p>

<p>Basically a version of Zazzle where they make tchotchkes with your photos instead of the customer's.<br> Hard to get a real ego boost out of that.</p>

<p>TL:DR<br> The photos are in an exhibit, not a newspaper. As such they are on display as art and commentary. Any manipulation he has done is his prerogative.<br> Photojournalism is not an indifferent recording of facts. It is imagery with impact and the greater the impact the bette. Impact IS manipulation of emotion and information.<br> News agencies are very sensitive about manipulation precisely because they want you to be affected by the image knowing that what is portrayed really happened. Of course if you have ever been in the field you know that so much of what was photographed has been staged or recreated.<br> Sadly, McCurry was victimized by sloppy print prep.</p>

<p>TL:DR<br> The photos are in an exhibit, not a newspaper. As such they are on display as art and commentary. Any manipulation he has done is his prerogative.<br> Photojournalism is not an indifferent recording of facts. It is imagery with impact and the greater the impact the bette. Impact IS manipulation of emotion and information.<br> News agencies are very sensitive about manipulation precisely because they want you to be affected by the image knowing that what is portrayed really happened. Of course if you have ever been in the field you know that so much of what was photographed has been staged or recreated.<br> Sadly, McCurry was victimized by sloppy print prep.</p>

<p>Offering a premium of files should be made only if a substantial purchase is made IMO.<br> Sending them all the files of a show after a modest purchase encourages low-ballers.<br> These days prints are seen as expensive and limited in usefulness.<br> Files are the real goal even with the technically inept. Giving away the real product while trying to sell the unwanted product seems like a recipe for small revenue.</p>

<p>This looks to me like a medium hard tungsten light source camera left with a strobe fill. As the color is mismatched but not enormously so I wonder if the strobe was slightly gelled. <br> Either way, not my cup of tea but I am familiar with the style in some "fashion" circles.</p>

<p>I am unaware of any publication that accepts watermarked images for publication.<br> Most will give photo credit however many publications won't even do that.<br> For advertising, no mention of the photographer is ever mentioned unless the photographer's identity is relevant to the ad.</p>

<p>I too, have had a desire for a unified system. I had all Buff gear, then explored Hensel and then Bowens. <br> Most of this was done with an eye to studio photography but one rat years my work has migrated largely to location work.<br> This has required a re-think in my system. Battery power is mandatory as locations may or may not have power but more importantly it allows me to move quickly.<br> I am now migrating to Godox flashes as they are the first to offer a full range of strobes that can be powered by Li-ion batteries. More importantly their trigger system is compatible with all their strobes and the receivers do not need batteries. Power is adjustable from the camera.<br> The new AD600 with built-in battery has completed the set for me. It is available in TTL versions or completely manual for significantly less money. <br> I have several Godox Ving 850 and 860 speed lights, Several AD-360 360w/s strobes and am awaiting delivery of 2 600w/s AD600s. <br> They all use Li-ion batteries for long shoots and the AD600s have a Bowens mount that is solid. The AD360s are Quantum clones so a lot of modifiers are available for them and the Vings are speed light form factors also with a lot of accessories available.<br> My experience with them has been excellent. Solid reliable units with excellent radio triggers.<br> I highly recommend them.</p>