Thoughts interspersed...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > Ok, so this topic ended up relating primarily to, yet again, my "rates", > with John, Chris et.al observing: > > > > That's not a budget - it's a joke. > > > > > > four rolls of film, and expecting 100 shots? > > > > > > HAR!" > > Hmmm, now how do I respond? > > Well, it all started back in August when a local lady approached me and > told me that she was starting up a kids clothing label. She was going > to be developing a website, and would need about "18" photographs. Her > budget was au$400. I told her immediately that, I would need to shoot > at least 4 rolls to come up with the 18 that she would need, to allow > her at least some choice etc. At this stage, it didn't include any > studio work, this was JUST for the location stuff with the kids dressed > in the clothes etc. > > The reasoning for my quote? Then, I had never done anything commercial > at all. Fashion is an opportunity that I don't get to do very often out > here, but it is the "root" of my photographic passions, I love to do it > that much. Combine this with getting to shoot with the kids, and I get > to double my fun. I felt awkward and fraudulent charging her too high a > rate for something that I have little to no experience in, sooooo, I > quoted her a rate of au$100 per roll of processed film. Well, I'd say that your first error was in undervaluing your knowledge. I'm not thinking strictly in terms of price, but also in how you present yourself. You may have little experience shooting for product advertisments, but you have a lot of experience and skill taking photos of people--especially kids. The distinction between your 'action' portraits and commercial work is probably smaller than you think. You have the skills already, even if you haven't used them yet for this application. If I specialize in landscape photography, and I take most of my photos on the Canadian prairies, I'm not going to discount my work or my skills if asked to shoot, say, the American Midwest. Aspects of the shoot will be different, but light is still light, composition is still composition, and many of my skills will be directly transferable. In your case, the distinction is even smaller, as your subject matter is the same. Judging from your sample photos on your website, you are quite good at finding the right composition, timing and exposure to achieve certain effects. You bring those skills with you. You may take them for granted, but your client won't. To her, you're already an expert. It's all in how you present yourself. > She would receive, as proofs, first run 5x7" prints, plus negs. Good deal for her. > To be honest, I was just covering my expenses, cause I would have done > this entire shoot for free just to gain the experience and the exposure > from her website. You'd get the same exposure on her website if you charged for the photos as you would if you didn't. In fact, if she had to pay anywhere near the going rate for them, she'd probably brag *more* about you. :) Experience is good, but you can get that by shooting any child wearing any type of clothing. If experience is what you're after, get 4 or 5 outfits, 1 or 2 willing kids, and experiment with them for an afternoon. That'll get your commercial portfolio off to a very good start. It's nice to be published, but if you do the shoot for little more than your expenses, you're sending out the wrong message about you and your work. It's better to have a strong portfolio and no publications than it is to be known among your clients and potential clients as a photographer who will work for peanuts. > This lady has vision, and mark my words, her label is going to go > places... All the more reason to get her used to paying reasonable rates from the beginning. :) > au$100 per roll, is what I was then charging for my portrait sittings, so I > just quoted her the same. Sorry, I'm not trying to come down too hard on the price, but there are some major differences. Portraits are for personal use; these shots are for commercial purposes. People have portraits taken for personal reasons; clients have commercial shots taken so they can make boatloads of money. :) > Well, time passed, and there were delays at the manufacturers etc. My > lady only received her final garment samples last week. Obviously my > situation has now changed somewhat than what it was in August. I am now > able to offer her digital services. Soooo, basically, I won't incur any > processing/film costs that I had already factored into the original $400 > and so, that in effect, is clear cut profit. I didn't want her to feel > as though I was ripping her off, as she knows very well that I now > wouldn't have to pay for film/processing, so instead I gave her more of > my time. Argh! The cost of your materials has *nothing* to do with the cost to the client, other than making sure that it gets factored in somewhere. Two points: (1) The client is paying for the final images, and it's irrelevant how you choose to produce those images. (2) If anything, you should charge *more* for your digital images. You now have to recoup the expense of your DSLR, which you wouldn't have had to do shooting film. Also, digital images can put more of a time burden on the photographer than film images when it comes to post-production tweaking. You may have to do much of what a lab would otherwise do. Even if you choose not to, you're still using some very expensive equipment that has to get factored into the price somehow. If your client doesn't believe in paying extra based on your equipment, then they have no grounds for demanding less based on your media. > I still have another 2 or 3 days work to go. I know that this averages > out at a very low hourly rate, but like I said, remember, I would have > done this job for free, I love this type of work THAT much, and never > get to do any of it out here where I am located. *eek* i just worked it > out and it is like, $7.30 per hour of shooting time alone, that is > without factoring in post-production, archiving, burning, etc... Yeah, you're getting reamed. :) One more bone... what does loving your work have to do with charging less??? I've never understood this. I would never pay a premium price to a photographer who hated or was indifferent to what they were doing. In fact, photographers who really love what they're doing should charge *more*, as they bring more dedication, creativity and inspiration to their work. These are the people who--like you--produce exceptional results because they know and love their subject. Please don't sell yourself short here. > To be able to refer someone to that site and say, "oh, yeah, btw, all of the > photography on that site is mine..." would just be so fantastic... I'd be the first to congratulate you, but that alone won't pay the bills. Probably the hardest thing about professional photography is the charging and collecting money part. I know countless photographers who do very high quality work who will never, ever be commercially successful, and I see a ton of photographers who take mediocre photos who are raking in the money. Skill is important, but so is a business-like approach. Please don't be intimidated or put off by my suggestions. It's not always easy to ask to be paid a lot of money for something you enjoy doing, but it's something that you have to learn to do if you want to become commercially successful. Don't feel that you're ripping people off. If clients think that you're charging too much, and you can't convince them otherwise, then they'll find someone cheaper who won't do as good a job. If enough clients do this, *then* you can start evaluating your price:quality ratio, or the type of clients you're attracting. :) But until then, you have to know that you're worth the higher prices you dream about charging. If you're convinced about that, then odds are good that the client will be, too. > Secondly, she has already booked me for a second shoot for her fashion > line that will be released in April, on the strengths of the images that > I offered her the other day after my studio shooting. Congrats! > Sooooo, now I feel that I have painted myself into a corner (as warned > by many of you already!), and now I am trying to work out how to > increase my prices for the next shoot so that she still feels as though > she is getting value for money, whilst paying more for it. If I were > doing the same amount of work that I have done for this one, I would > want the budget increased to around the $1500 for it to be "feasible" I > would think, that way I would at least be making around au$25 per hour, > something that I think is much more reasonable. (still too cheap by most > of your standards, I know, but reasonable to me...). Leaving aside specific price suggestions for now, here's something you may want to tell her: Explain to her that you admire her business plan and clothing line, that you expect her company to be very successful in the future, and that you'd love to have a long-term relationship with her as her primary photographer. Let her know that that is why you, as a courtesy, did the first shoot as a not-for-profit deal, so she could judge not just the quality of your work, but its suitability for her purposes. Tell her that that was essentially a free sample, and that if she likes what she sees, you'd be happy to do more work for her in the future at your standard commercial rate. Make up a rate here, but make sure that it is priced high enough to let her know that you value yourself and your work. You have to appoach this with the knowledge that you are a good photographer for her needs and that she likes your work. Remember, this is the only important thing in commercial photography. If the client is happy, all is good. It doesn't matter if this is your first commercial shoot, or your first big client, or your first time using a new camera, or if you have a killer headache during the shoot... if the client likes the final images, nothing else matters, and none of the above situations should lower the final price. If she's a businesswoman, she should understand that you have to receive fair market value for your services. How long could she start giving away her clothes at cost and expect to survive? Free samples or ridiculously low prices at first aren't a bad idea, but that can only last for so long. Even then, you'll have to fight to overcome your reputation as a budget-priced photographer, or as a low-end clothing line. What I'm saying is that your last shoot, done at cost, isn't necessarily a bad thing if you describe it to her as a free sample. But you have to move right into charging a fair amount if you want her to take you seriously as a professional photographer. Otherwise, she'll pigeonhole you as an inexpensive photographer, and you'll start getting clients who are shopping for the lowest price, not the best quality. > She is really appreciative that she got a great deal for the first time > around and does expect it to increase somewhat - so I was thinking that > I could maybe invoice her for the $400, but divide it out over a per > hour basis so that she does actually see that I was only earning $7 per > hour, which is less than the award wage for a Check-out Chic in these > parts! So, that way when I invoice her for the next job, I can simply > put 60 hours @ $25 per hour = $1500 . This is more inline with an > average weekly wage, and I am sure that she would appreciate that, > knowing that I put in well over an average weeks worth of work. Well, I still think that that is too low, but I trust you already know that. <vbg> It's not that your total price is too high, but that your time is so long. If you really need to spend 60 hours on a commercial shoot, you should charge a much, much higher rate. You're a highly skilled artist, and should price yourself accordingly. To you it's no big deal, but to anyone who's not a professional photographer your shots will seem amazing and unachievable. Plumbers and electricians charge a helluva lot more than $25/hour because they are very good at doing things that most people cannot, just as you are. In fact, you should charge *more* than they do, because of the artistic nature of your work. You can study to become a tradesman, but no amount of memorizing or practising will necessarily result in an artistic vision like yours. I'm not sure what you charge for weddings, but if you spend 8 hours photographing it and another day or so putting the proofs into an album, $25/hour will leave you with around $800 before expenses, which is obviously a ludicrously low amount. Why charge more for a wedding than for a commercial client who is looking to use your photos to generate revenue for their business? You may find it easier to charge by the job, rather than by the hour or by the roll. If you charge by the hour, you'll get some clients who argue that a good photographer should have been able to get X number of shots in half the time you took. If you charge by the roll, you'll find that clients expect every shot to be a keeper and don't like to see you burn through film. Also, they'll expect the price to be pretty cheap, as everyone knows how inexpensive film and developing are. Clients aren't paying for your materials (although you should factor that into the price, of course). They're paying for your experience, skills, and your ability to translate your unique artistic vision into a printable image suitable for commerical purposes. Good photography, like good clothing, does not come cheap. If you stick to your guns now, you may lose some clients you'd otherwise have, but you'll also attract clients who otherwise wouldn't have considered you. You want to be known for the quality of your work, not the cheapness of your prices. If you don't respect your own work enough to charge top dollar for it, how can you expect your clients to respect it? chris
