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.

Very new to doing this sort of photography, although I've been fortunate in doing some work for some fairly large business in the area.

I've been doing a fair amount of homework on this topic and wanted to get your thoughts.

 

A couple of things...

 

1. How are you charging for your photography? hourly / daily/ 1/2 day.

2. Are you charging a creative fee/production fees/ usage fees?

3. Do those creative fees stay fixed?

4. How do you figure out what you usage fee will be?

5. Do you also add in a per image fee?

 

Lots of questions, but lets start with those. If you can answer just one, it would help.

 

Here is my current situation.

 

Just shot 24 images of interior and exterior of a major production company in DC. Images will be used for marketing from the leasing company. The production company will most certainly want a few if not all of those images too.

 

Time spent:

 

3 hr drive

1hr walkaround

3hr shoot

4hr post

 

The bill i'm sending them is going to be $1375 which at this point doesn't include any usage fees for third party.

I'm billing at $125hr

I don't really like this way of billing because a closer job location and fewer shots would be a lot less money in my pocket.

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>

I have a contract that I use for all architectural photography that, when signed, grants me permissions to use the photographs for

promotion, competition and stock sales and grants me all applicable property releases.

Never had a problem and many are flattered that their property may be considered for other publication.

<p>I agree about using a 32 oz tank. Should be no problem. I always pre-soak my film for about 30 seconds to ensure even wetting by the developer and the minimization of air bells.<br>

The concern about a few seconds out of a 6+minute developing time is unwarranted.</p>

<p>We ARE our own worst enemies. However I notice that demand for photography is relatively inelastic at different levels in different genres/markets.<br>

The real problem is that we are crawling about in the dark with respect to quoting.<br>

All markets are different and all clients are different. Tools such as Fotoquote are often cited as a good starting point for pricing. And just like battle plans, they never survive first contact with the enemy/client.<br>

The fact is that most of us do not deal with reps that sell us to agencies and get "industry standard" rates. We work with clients who are not interested in the quasi union-speak of industry practices. They want their pictures fast, great, and with unlimited use. If you aren't dancing to that tune you will be scratched off the list as they move to the next guy on their Google search.<br>

Just like wading in strange water you get a feel for pricing in your market over time. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you fall in a hole. Most of the time we shuffle along hoping we don't get hurt.</p>

<p>"But, considering all the other images I've seen where a camera is remotely tripped by a wild animal subject (humming birds, tigers at a watering hole, etc) I don't think we've heard the last on this subject yet."<br>

True, I am sure National Geographic is very concerned right now.</p>

<p>As Ellis noted you will need to charge for"beer and Spenser's" ;)<br>

Seriously, his advice is correct in estimating a price. <br>

My experience is that small businesses do not understand the concept of usage and will stare blankly at you.<br>

A flat fee per property will be far more understandable to them. Do not be surprised if they think that $200 plus gas and food is fair. They don't think of these things and compare the job to using their phone.</p>

<p>I got my first architectural job from my landlord when I was a portrait photographer. I told him I would shoot the job and he could say yes or no but if he said yes he would be obligated to buy 10 views. He loved them and now my business is largely architectural photography. It took time to build but I did experiment on my first paying job.<br>

I looked at a lot of magazines such Architectural Digest, Architectural Record, Dwell etc. I paid attention to the viewpoints, time of day and lighting.<br>

You can practice on local buildings and your own house for interiors.<br>

The best thing is that often small businesses are less demanding than larger operations in bigger cities. This can give you an opportunity to learn in real life before moving your ambitions up market. </p>

<p>There have been a number of great responses here but I stopped reading at Tony Bynum's post. He took the words out of my mouth virtually verbatim.<br>

You do need all the tools of the "office" but at the end of the day it will be YOUR office. Also (as my career seems to mirror Tony's in its evolution if not success) becoming a photographer's assistant for different photographers is IMPERATIVE. You will quickly learn what is important in successful commercial photography. You will see good practices and bad practices and you will see how one person's strengths are another's weaknesses. <br>

Then you can start reaching out and making your own career. Do it now. You are young and errors are reparable.</p>

<p>Scammity scam scam scam.<br>

OK, a "museum" is trolling the internet for photographs to reproduce with credit for the "maker"?</p>

<p>Do not let your eyes glaze over with the idea that this is how careers are launched. This is pure deceit coming to your mailbox. <br>

Even in the enormously unlikely event that this is an honest request, why on earth would you send files to a stranger so they can make prints to sell?</p>

<p>What your neighbor said about them wanting to work with you in the future is one of those things that sets my alarm bells off.<br>

If your goal is to build a business that makes decent money you do not want to build it with bottom feeders that will refer other bottom feeders.</p>

<p>I would quote your terms at a day rate with licensing for six images. If they don't want it , fine. You need to set yur boundaries or they will set them for you. <br>

Your neighbor may give you grief but point out this is how you earn money for food. Their organization has to pay going rates for electricians and plumbers etc. Why should you negotiate away your rights?</p>

<p>Sorry for the negative tone but I am all out of patience with "clients" that promise future work in excange for a master/slave relationship today.</p>

<p>Fawad,<br>

I would recommend renting the 1.2 before buying.<br>

I would ignore all the tech specs tossed around about which is sharper also. What is important is whether you can work well with the lens. I have a 1.8 and borrowed a mkII 1.2 from a friend. What I noticed was that shooting wide open there was a difference in the apparent OOF but it was slight. At close range both were very difficult to focus with extremely shallow DOF. At greater distances the 1.2 had a slight advantage in throwing the background out of focus but not dramatic.<br>

The 135 has a seemingly greater ability to isolate subjects and, for me, a better working distance.</p>

<p>At bottom, do cheap research by renting.</p>

<p>This thread is a bit old but I feel that the responses fall short of what one can do.</p>

<p>First, call in at the local stores in question and ask to meet with the manager.<br>

Inform them of your concerns about illegal copying. The PPA has resources you can get to help him/her understand what the laws are. Emphasize that you are concerned that their employees can create huge financial risks for them by unwittingly accepting this work. Let them know that a sign on the copier does not protect them.<br>

In my experience most managers are cooperative. In the odd instance that you get a smart aleck who wants to debate, you let them know that your concerns will continue to go up the corporate ladder till someone does take action.<br>

Even the dimmest of managers do not relish the prospect of a district manager yelling to them about existing policy.</p>

<p>Some good responses here.<br>

My first comment would be getting the communication clear in the initial consultation.<br>

The second would be pricing it according to the fact that someone is commissioning a fair sized project. Just because calendars go for $20 at WalMart is irrelevant. The project would be well north of $750 for me as each image would be quite different. In addition, it is unlikely that the design of this piece would be without pain.</p>

<p>I get a variation of this issue every year at Christmas when people call to book a session and intend to order cards only. Somewhere in their fevered imagination is a belief that I will do a complete (or even abbreviated ) family portrait session and deliver cards at a price that is $20 greater than the chain store delivers cards alone.<br>

I price my 4x6 cards at $20 ea. with a minimum of 25. And that is for the low rent slimline. A proper folded 5x7 card on fine paper starts at $30 for each card in sets of 25.<br>

Needless to say I get no takers.<br>

OTOH I do a fair amount of cards for portrait clients who order at least $600 in print sales. I will let them choose an image for a card and then print at reasonable (but very profitable for me) prices. <br>

I keep my prices up and let clients get a premium product at a premium price that is otherwise unavailable.</p>

<p>I agree with all posters here in that having and promoting a web site is a must.<br>

Further, your website should be on all your material and you should distribute cards as freely as possible. Name recognition is important and cards are cheap.</p>

<p>I suppose you could always play hard to get as a strategy, but as the old saying goes, "Opening a business without advertising (marketing/promotion) is like winking at a pretty girl in the dark".</p>

<p>The responses here have been very good and in my view most helpful in planning your photo career. My observation is that you also find yourself in exactly the position many (if not all) of us have found ourselves at the beginning of our careers.</p>

<p>This is a great post by a great photographer and addresses real aspects of your position:http://www.zarias.com/cheap-photographers-only-kill-themselves-not-the-industry/<br>

As you also point out, you have no current income. Some income is better than none and waiting around to land a client wanting to pay top dollar for someone whose skills are rusty from inaction is a poor strategy.</p>

<p>Best of luck. Hunger and persistence are the greatest factors in success.</p>