Options
How much to charge for art copy work?
Tim Kamppinen
Registered Users Posts: 816 Major grins
Hello, I'm trying to finally do some paid photography gigs, although I haven't done a lot so far. I'm a teacher at a small rural school in Upper Michigan, and the art teacher here hired me to take photos of her paintings at her home so that she can submit them for art shows, etc. via email. So I went over to her house, photographed approximately 10 pieces, and it took about 2 hrs total including travel time (maybe 15 min). I still need to edit them and put them on a cd to give to her, but I don't think that should take more than about an hour (on my ancient slow computer) considering I'm going to do next to no retouching (just some slight sharpening and maybe contrast adjustments, but I don't want them to come out looking sharper and punchier than the actual paintings, of course). So what I'm wondering is what to charge for this service. Things that I've considered are:
Total time involved: 3 hours (approx.)
Almost no creativity required on my part (just placing my lights to avoid glare from the glass)
Not very difficult overall
The images really have no intrinsic value for me (which is why I'm just giving a CD of files; what am I going to do with photos of someone else's art?)
This is the first time I've actually been hired for a specific job.
She's a coworker.
We live in a very small town where the "going rate" for photography is no where near what it would be in a large city.
So, I was thinking something around $50 for the disc. Does this seem outrageously low? I looked at site or two online and people were charging upwards of $100 for one image! I didn't see where they were located but it certainly wasn't in the market that I am attempting to serve. Most of the local photographers charge sitting fees of $40-60 or so for portraits, so I thought that $50 would be a reasonable price for the disc considering that I didn't really need to put a whole lot of thought, planning, creativity, etc into this and there was almost no post work involved.
What do you think? I don't want to overcharge, but I don't want to sell myself short either.
Total time involved: 3 hours (approx.)
Almost no creativity required on my part (just placing my lights to avoid glare from the glass)
Not very difficult overall
The images really have no intrinsic value for me (which is why I'm just giving a CD of files; what am I going to do with photos of someone else's art?)
This is the first time I've actually been hired for a specific job.
She's a coworker.
We live in a very small town where the "going rate" for photography is no where near what it would be in a large city.
So, I was thinking something around $50 for the disc. Does this seem outrageously low? I looked at site or two online and people were charging upwards of $100 for one image! I didn't see where they were located but it certainly wasn't in the market that I am attempting to serve. Most of the local photographers charge sitting fees of $40-60 or so for portraits, so I thought that $50 would be a reasonable price for the disc considering that I didn't really need to put a whole lot of thought, planning, creativity, etc into this and there was almost no post work involved.
What do you think? I don't want to overcharge, but I don't want to sell myself short either.
0
Comments
For me the answer is pretty simple. You should charge what you quoted, and what she agreed to prior to the shoot.
No quote=no meeting of the minds, no agreement, no contract, a no win situation.
Sam
Edit: I just looked at your web site, and you have some very nice images.
Yeah, that's the thing. I didn't quote a price and we didn't agree on anything. Which I realize seems very unprofessional, and I don't plan on doing it that way again. But anyway I need to come up with a number before I bring her the files (hopefully tomorrow). My plan right now is to go with $50. I'm thinking that even if it is low, I'm not going to get a lot of jobs of this type anyway, so it's not like people are going to be wondering why I charge them more and don't give them the files when I do their senior portraits (since the two jobs are so different).
BTW, thanks for the compliment.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
Wow. I am not sure why anyone would do a shoot without talking terms, but hey that is what you did.
If you are comfortable with charging $50 then charge her and move on. Why do you believe that you won't get future work like this?
My first thought would be send you plenty of work at $50 since I charge upwards of $500.
Okay, back to topic. Do not get in the habit of thinking where future work will come from. Be available and work will find you.
Now, go to the mirror and tell yourself to never, ever, shoot anything (that can provide income) without a contract in hand.
Website
Well, this was a pretty informal arrangement. I don't have any contracts made up, etc. Of course that's something I need to do before going further, but this was sort of a spur of the moment "Hey could I hire you to do this..." sort of thing. Lesson learned on that count.
As far as not getting a lot of work like this, well, first of all there are not a lot of artists in the area (or people for that matter; the school I teach at will have a graduating class of about 20 people this year, just to give you an idea) and secondly I don't plan on marketing my self for this sort of thing (it's pretty boring and I want to devote my energy to getting into portrait/wedding work, which I enjoy doing and involves at least some measure of artistry/skill/talent). I think a lot of people don't comprehend what it's like in a small town. First of all, there are no photographers in the actual town where I live. The nearest ones are 40 - 60 miles away, and as I said they charge under $100 for a sitting fee. If someone around here charged $500 for a shoot other than a wedding they would have little work, because it's a poor area and no one could afford it even if they loved your work. Obviously you live in an area where the market for photography will support such a rate, which is great and if I were there I would do the same thing. But back here in the sticks, it just wouldn't fly.
Thanks for the feedback, though. I will be sure to get everything in writing from now on. That's basically laziness/stupidity on my part, I'll admit.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
I am originally from a small town, and have lived in smaller markets. The town that I am from in the year 2000 added their 2nd stop sign, and that is on the other end of the road from the 1st stop sign. They still have 1 school for grades K through 12.
Even though I now live in a pretty populated area, the majority of my work is not from the bay area.
My largest client is based in Florida. They mail me packages several times a week and I photograph and mail them back.
There are thousands of better photographers between Florida and California.
There are thousands of cheaper photographers between Florida and California.
There are probably thousands of ten year olds that are better at Photoshop than I am between Florida and California.
The reason that I have this contract is because they know that each and every week they will receive images that are consistantly exceeding their expectations.
These images sell their products locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.
The people that see these images in magazines and on line have no idea that one little smart alek photographer in San Francisco is taking the images. Nor do they care.
Way too often I read on these online forums about someone in Podunk, (enter your state here) that only sees the business there.
I have traveled all over the United States and with no exceptions I can buy magazines, newspapers, get on the internet and even view ads on my phone.
I am relatively certain that these ads did not originate in Podunk, (whatever state I was in).
My apologies if there is actually a Podunk
My point is that there is a great big world out there, and not every business prospect has to come from your town. That is even true here in the bay area.
The past two weekends I was brought down to Los Angeles by clients who wanted me to shoot their products. They didn't do this because of a lack of willing photographers in L.A.
There are members of this forum that I have sent possible work to. When I see a photographers work who would fit one of my clients needs, I send that info to them.
I fully understand that not everyone wants to shoot products. Believe me, I know that it isn't as much fun as shooting naked women, or for that matter taking pictures of hawks, but it pays darn well.
All I am saying is do not limit yourself to your town or one type of photography.
Website
As for what would YOU do with images of her art work.....put it in your commercial portfolio.....that is exactly what this shoot was ...... a commercial product shoot.....also that disk needs to be low resolution or here is what she could do: She has original art work that YOU shoot and give here high rez copies of..........she decides to sell limited edition copies of here paintings/ drawings.....she has your images of her work and now she can make a run of 100 to 1000 limited edition prints for a dollar or two each and sell for $30 - 150 depending on her size. of course she could run 1K and split into 750 signed and number and 250 signed and up what she charges by a lot.
I had the privilege of shooting several Vargas originals for a local attorney and I had a weird feeling in my stomach while at his house doing this.....I asked him straight forward why he wanted such good copies that I had to rent a Hassleblad and lens for the job, that if it had been just for insurance purposes I could have charged him less and shoot on 35mm......he tried telling me it was his Insurance agents idea but I called him on it as I knew the agent.....so he gave me some reall vague reasons why and why everything had to be perfectly aligned so the copy was as perfect as the original......I smelled scam.......so I shot but I was off alignment just a tad to where on small prints it would not show but on 30x40 (size of the originals) it would not print square...........
I delivered him a copy of the original transparencies (slide film) and I kept the originals just in case.
I heard later after he passed away (diabetes complications at 45) that he was getting ready to use those for an insurance scam and also to sell copies in mexico and a couple of other foreign countries......
Just be careful.
Sorry, Art. But in this instance, the photographer is acting as nothing more than a high-level copy machine. The original art belonged to the artist and it is her property and she has the right to make copies (photographic, lithographic, or otherwise) to sell as she sees fit. To assume that the photographer might have any claim to use the photos is disingenuous. She is using the photographer's technical ability, equipment, and time to gain those copies of HER work. Just because YOU shoot the pictures does not give you any sort of copyright to the images, because you did not CREATE anything. Granted, a contract should have been executed prior, just to keep things straight. But that should be a reasonable payment for the time and equipment costs, and nothing more. She SHOULD get high resolution images, if that's what she paid for.
In the second case, where you shot the Vargas images, the work may have been owned by someone, but they did not create it. Thus you were right to question it. Personally, I wouldn't have even shot the job. Even though you altered the images (in or out of camera) to prevent quality copies, you may have entangled yourself in the fraud by doing so. Just my opinion, though.
jon
http://www.takeflightphoto.com
http://www.usdgcphotos.com