Product Photography -- what should I charge?

kdog

I've got a chance to do some photography for some local artisan/builders who do custom interior work. The work is difficult because it involves getting the lighting perfect for a whole wall, floor to ceiling. The shots will be used as promotional materials targeted at their customers which are generally high-end architects. So the distribution is high-end, but very limited.

The clients have extremely high standards, and have booted out every other photographer that's attempted it so far. However, being the optimist that I am, I believe I can solve the technical challenges.

In order to do this, I'm looking at building a custom lighting system that will cost me about a grand. I'm willing to make that investment, because I believe I can pull this gig off. My thoughts are to build the lighting system on my own dime and refine the shots until I get results that they want to buy.

Once I'm able to get the shots, the question is how much should I charge for them? I think they have around six scenes that they want to capture initially, and more to come in the future. The owners are casual acquaintances, and I'm not looking at making a killing here. It would be nice to be able to at least pay off the lighting system. So that would be somewhere in the vicinity of $200 per scene. Is that too low or too high?

All comments are welcome.

Thanks!
-joel

Blaker

kdog wrote:

I've got a chance to do some photography for some local artisan/builders who do custom interior work. The work is difficult because it involves getting the lighting perfect for a whole wall, floor to ceiling. The shots will be used as promotional materials targeted at their customers which are generally high-end architects. So the distribution is high-end, but very limited.

The clients have extremely high standards, and have booted out every other photographer that's attempted it so far. However, being the optimist that I am, I believe I can solve the technical challenges.

In order to do this, I'm looking at building a custom lighting system that will cost me about a grand. I'm willing to make that investment, because I believe I can pull this gig off. My thoughts are to build the lighting system on my own dime and refine the shots until I get results that they want to buy.

Once I'm able to get the shots, the question is how much should I charge for them? I think they have around six scenes that they want to capture initially, and more to come in the future. The owners are casual acquaintances, and I'm not looking at making a killing here. It would be nice to be able to at least pay off the lighting system. So that would be somewhere in the vicinity of $200 per scene. Is that too low or too high?

All comments are welcome.

Thanks!
-joel

Sounds way too low to me.
If $200 a scene pays off the lighting, then that means you are basically working for free. What about the time to set up the scene? The time to shoot it? The time involved in post-processing?
What kind of a budget do they have for this? What kind of money were they talking with the previous photogs?
What kind of income will these promotional photos bring in to them?
Don't undervalue yourself.

kdog

Blaker, thanks for taking the time to comment.

Blaker wrote:

Sounds way too low to me.
If $200 a scene pays off the lighting, then that means you are basically working for free. What about the time to set up the scene? The time to shoot it? The time involved in post-processing?

Those are legitimate points. Although, nobody says all the capital equipment that I have to buy for the job needs to be paid off by the first few shoots. I'm hoping to build a relationship with these guys and get tons of follow-up work.

What kind of a budget do they have for this? What kind of money were they talking with the previous photogs? What kind of income will these promotional photos bring in to them?

All unknowns. However, these guys are positioning themselves in a very specialized and potentially lucrative niche. They're not small time rollers. They've built a small factory and have patents on some processes used to build specialized surface materials out of precious metals and gemstones that sell for hundreds of dollars a square foot. They have customers in Hong Kong and Dubai already. Having good photographic collateral will be key for them. However, they're just now getting off the ground.

Don't undervalue yourself.

Photography is currently my hobby, although some day I hope to change that and start making money at it. My plan is to keep iterating on the scenes they want until I achieve the quality we'd both like to see. Then when I have those images in hand, I can set a price. But I have to be realistic. Ok, $200 is too low. But $1,000 a scene is probably too high. I dunno, what would a pro get to do this? I guess I could keep track of my time, and use an hourly rate.

Thanks again and regards,
-joel

catspaw

kdog wrote:

Photography is currently my hobby, although some day I hope to change that and start making money at it.

It might be your 'hobby' but if you are charging money, it IS a business and you need to treat it as such. It can be a hobby-business, but the value you put on your work is exactly what it is. Show respect to your OWN work by charging a fair price. By devaluing the price, you belittle your own effort and skills.

$0.02

kdog

catspaw wrote:

It might be your 'hobby' but if you are charging money, it IS a business and you need to treat it as such. It can be a hobby-business, but the value you put on your work is exactly what it is. Show respect to your OWN work by charging a fair price. By devaluing the price, you belittle your own effort and skills.

$0.02

Thanks for the condescending, but content-free lecture. :bluduh

catspaw

kdog wrote:

Thanks for the condescending, but content-free lecture. :bluduh

Apologies. It was ment as a thought making consideration of how you value your own photography. You are obviously talented, but charging so little shows you don't value it yourself. If that's no true, then charge accordingly.

If this is still all content-free to you, then there's nothing I can do to change your pov.

kdog

catspaw wrote:

You are obviously talented, but charging so little shows you don't value it yourself.

By what criteria are you judging it's too little? Obviously you have such a criteria, because you seem to be applying it here. If you (or anyone else) can explain what that criteria is, then that would be helpful. But having people sitting in the bleachers saying "eh, too little" and giving me lectures about devaluing myself isn't helping. I need to set a price and I was hoping to get some guidelines from folks who've actually done commercial product photography. THAT would be useful content to me, rather than platitudes about my self-worth.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Leah and appreciate your interest in the matter.

-joel

catspaw

Pricing is definitely an art into itself. I'm not sure who around here does or has done Product photography, but I *do* hope they chime in if they have.

I based the $200 off of the fact that I've seen that as the 1 hour posing rate for horse portraits. Which is *no*where nearly as technical or useful as what you are aiming for here. If you get it 'right', you've got a very very specificed niche market that you can dominate.

Now if you want to get technical about it, traditional pricing schemes have you calculate your overhead + skill + artistic input (or technical/creative problem solving if you will) + time and other factors. I just see a LOT of very unique aspects to what you are doing and those alone should drive the price up.

Blaker

kdog wrote:

By what criteria are you judging it's too little? Obviously you have such a criteria, because you seem to be applying it here. If you (or anyone else) can explain what that criteria is, then that would be helpful. But having people sitting in the bleachers saying "eh, too little" and giving me lectures about devaluing myself isn't helping. I need to set a price and I was hoping to get some guidelines from folks who've actually done commercial product photography. THAT would be useful content to me, rather than platitudes about my self-worth.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Leah and appreciate your interest in the matter.

-joel

Cat actually gave you very good advice. If you give away your product for pennies, they will think that's what the product is worth, and then when you out of the blue want to charge $$$$$$$, they will find someone else who will give away the product for pennies.
So don't undervalue yourself and don't undercut other photogs by giving it away for essentially nothing.

You have to know your cost of doing business, you have to put a value on your time, and you have to put a value on your product. How valuable are these photos to your client? How much money are YOUR photos going to make for THEM?
If you have something that makes your photos unique, ( for example , because of your unique lighting system) then that makes your photos more valuable to them than any other photographers', and they should be willing to pay for that kind of expertise.

THere is a lot more involved in selling photographs than showing up and pressing the button.

Do your homework, find out the answers to the questions we've asked, do a google search of other architectural photogs websites and see what they are charging.
Also, do you have liability insurance? What if your lighting rig falls and damages their product, or injures one of their employees?

Here is a little something to get you started, but this is your business and you have to put in the groundwork so that you know what you are doing.

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/business.php

Cygnus Studios

Product photography is quite different than most other types of photography, simply because the clients use your image to sell products on a limitless basis. Therefor you need to keep that in mind.

As far as fees go, I can only base this on the limited information that you have provided.

I would figure my time at $100 per hour.
I would figure the finished shots at $200 to $250 each.
I would equally split the materials over the jobs. If all six shots are seperate, you will break even. Now you can easily lose on this if you get one shot.
However, if this equipment can be used for future assignments after the initial costs are recouped it is just a money maker.

As an example if you provide 6 finished photos at $1200, four hours of shooting / editing $400, and charged $200 for materials (based on four more shoots) your total would be $1800.00

Products shots will often mean purchasing equipment based on hope of getting the work, just keep in mind to add a percentage to each shoot until is paid for.
I would bid this job prior to spending a dime. This way the client has a rough idea of their costs. It doesn't have to be finalized until the contract being signed, but should be a very close estimate.

Do not have a fear of charging too much. They already have tried other photographers. Even if you are 3 or 4 times more expensive than the others doesn't matter. They did not get what they wanted.
Your photos will lead to sales. This is how they make their money. Whether they make a dollar or a million dollars is irrelevent to your fees.
Keep in mind that you are trying to accomplish what the others could not. If they ask for another quote, you can have them quote their budget.
Having others fail in front of me would make me as happy as I could be. It only means that my services become much more valuable when I pull it off.

kdog

catspaw wrote:

Pricing is definitely an art into itself. I'm not sure who around here does or has done Product photography, but I *do* hope they chime in if they have.

I based the $200 off of the fact that I've seen that as the 1 hour posing rate for horse portraits. Which is *no*where nearly as technical or useful as what you are aiming for here. If you get it 'right', you've got a very very specificed niche market that you can dominate.

Now if you want to get technical about it, traditional pricing schemes have you calculate your overhead + skill + artistic input (or technical/creative problem solving if you will) + time and other factors. I just see a LOT of very unique aspects to what you are doing and those alone should drive the price up.

Thanks, Leah. The $200/hr figure is a good datapoint to know. I appreciate and agree with the comments about being sure to factor in time, equipment, unique skills, etc.

Thanks again for your input.
-joel

kdog

Cygnus Studios wrote:

Product photography is quite different than most other types of photography, simply because the clients use your image to sell products on a limitless basis. Therefor you need to keep that in mind.

As far as fees go, I can only base this on the limited information that you have provided.

I would figure my time at $100 per hour.
I would figure the finished shots at $200 to $250 each.
I would equally split the materials over the jobs. If all six shots are seperate, you will break even. Now you can easily lose on this if you get one shot.
However, if this equipment can be used for future assignments after the initial costs are recouped it is just a money maker.

As an example if you provide 6 finished photos at $1200, four hours of shooting / editing $400, and charged $200 for materials (based on four more shoots) your total would be $1800.00

Products shots will often mean purchasing equipment based on hope of getting the work, just keep in mind to add a percentage to each shoot until is paid for.
I would bid this job prior to spending a dime. This way the client has a rough idea of their costs. It doesn't have to be finalized until the contract being signed, but should be a very close estimate.

Do not have a fear of charging too much. They already have tried other photographers. Even if you are 3 or 4 times more expensive than the others doesn't matter. They did not get what they wanted.
Your photos will lead to sales. This is how they make their money. Whether they make a dollar or a million dollars is irrelevent to your fees.
Keep in mind that you are trying to accomplish what the others could not. If they ask for another quote, you can have them quote their budget.
Having others fail in front of me would make me as happy as I could be. It only means that my services become much more valuable when I pull it off.

Steve, this post is so incredibly relevant and useful to my situation, I almost don't know what to say. Not only did you give me a formula for pricing this gig, but you even suggested rates and then walked me through the calculations for the job.

Equally useful are your words around not worrying about bidding too high. You're spot-on that since others have failed before me, I'm in a particularly unique situation. I can see that it would be better to start high and negotiate down if they cry poverty then it would be for me to start low then try to increase my prices later.

It's funny you mentioned adding a portion of the lighting costs to the shots until the equipment costs are covered. My wife who negotiates big contracts for a living suggested the same thing. Basically, I can tell the customer that the price of the shots will go down after the equipment costs are covered. This of course is incentive for the customer to give me more work. Oddly enough, they're already coming up with more things to shoot, even though I've delivered nothing yet.

Anyway, thanks every so much for taking the time to so understand my situation so thoroughly, and for the concrete set of recommendations. Whether I can pull the gig off or not is up to me now. But either way, I am indebted to your help with this.

-joel

Tim Kamppinen

Not knowing exactly what sort of lighting setup you are trying to assemble, my first thought is whether or not you could rent all or most of the equipment for the first shoot. That way if they decide not to go with you in the future you are stuck with a bunch of expensive gear that you won't need again, but if it turns into a recurring gig you can decide whether to purchase the stuff for yourself.

Blaker

kdog wrote:

It's funny you mentioned adding a portion of the lighting costs to the shots until the equipment costs are covered. My wife who negotiates big contracts for a living suggested the same thing. Basically, I can tell the customer that the price of the shots will go down after the equipment costs are covered. This of course is incentive for the customer to give me more work.

Actually, this isn't something you would share with your client- you are basically telling him that he is paying for your equipment.
Your equipment purchases and maintenance is always part of your cost of doing business, and should always be factored into your final price as part of your overhead. But it's not something you would disclose to your client or itemize on their bill.

Good luck on making this work- maybe you could post some of the photos when you finish your assignment?

kdog

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Not knowing exactly what sort of lighting setup you are trying to assemble, my first thought is whether or not you could rent all or most of the equipment for the first shoot. That way if they decide not to go with you in the future you are stuck with a bunch of expensive gear that you won't need again, but if it turns into a recurring gig you can decide whether to purchase the stuff for yourself.

Thanks, Tim. It's a fluorescent lighting system, 5,000 Kelvin, electronic ballasts, 32 bulbs total, arranged in 4 8' tall columns (8 bulbs per column). Basically want I wanted was a wall of perfectly even lighting. I'm planning on constructing a big diffuser to go between the lights and the scenes as well. If the gig falls through, I'm going to sell the lights to neighbors for garage lighting, with free installation!

Ideally what I would have wanted would have been multiple 8' tall softboxes. Maybe I could have rented those in Las Vegas, which is 100 miles away, or maybe not. Even if I could, the amount of travel time and expense would have been prohibitive I feel. Every time I needed to do another shot, I'd have to spend two half-days driving to Vegas and back. Ain't happenin'.

The lighting system is done. I just have to make the diffusers now.

kdog

Blaker wrote:

Actually, this isn't something you would share with your client- you are basically telling him that he is paying for your equipment.
Your equipment purchases and maintenance is always part of your cost of doing business, and should always be factored into your final price as part of your overhead. But it's not something you would disclose to your client or itemize on their bill.

Good luck on making this work- maybe you could post some of the photos when you finish your assignment?

I hear you, but I don't necessarily agree. It's kind of like an initial setup charge. Lots of business are run like this. After you pay off the setup charge, the price drops. Or it's spread out over the entire job if the exact quantity is known ahead of time, which doesn't apply in this case. As you can see from the picture above, this is not something that I'm likely to use elsewhere.

Yeah, I'll post the results.

Thanks,
-joel

Blaker

kdog wrote:

I hear you, but I don't necessarily agree. It's kind of like an initial setup charge. Lots of business are run like this. After you pay off the setup charge, the price drops. Or it's spread out over the entire job if the exact quantity is known ahead of time, which doesn't apply in this case. As you can see from the picture above, this is not something that I'm likely to use elsewhere.

Yeah, I'll post the results.

Thanks,
-joel

So then you would include that in a separate 'shooting fee', or in your hourly rate, and not as part of the finished photos? Because if they don't buy the photos, you're out all of the time and money you put into the lighting you constructed.

kdog

Blaker wrote:

So then you would include that in a separate 'shooting fee', or in your hourly rate, and not as part of the finished photos? Because if they don't buy the photos, you're out all of the time and money you put into the lighting you constructed.

Yes, and yes. I'd itemize it in the breakdown as a separate fee I guess.

And you're right, I'm going out on a limb here. But it's quid pro quo, because I'm learning on the job as well. They'll let me experiment and reshoot as much as I want on site while I'm figuring all this out.

Doing catalog quality interior shots will be a useful skill to have. As I improve and get a portfolio under my belt, I'll be in a far greater position next time to whip out a bid and a contract and do things more professionally.

Blaker

kdog wrote:

Yes, and yes. I'd itemize it in the breakdown as a separate fee I guess.

And you're right, I'm going out on a limb here. But it's quid pro quo, because I'm learning on the job as well. They'll let me experiment and reshoot as much as I want on site while I'm figuring all this out.

Doing catalog quality interior shots will be a useful skill to have. As I improve and get a portfolio under my belt, I'll be in a far greater position next time to whip out a bid and a contract and do things more professionally.

Sounds like it will be a great learning experience!
90% of great photos is knowing how to use light.
You're way ahead of the game if you are able to build your own!

kdog

Blaker wrote:

Sounds like it will be a great learning experience!
90% of great photos is knowing how to use light.
You're way ahead of the game if you are able to build your own!

Thanks! I'm pretty stoked about it.

Cygnus Studios

Blaker wrote:

Actually, this isn't something you would share with your client- you are basically telling him that he is paying for your equipment.
Your equipment purchases and maintenance is always part of your cost of doing business, and should always be factored into your final price as part of your overhead. But it's not something you would disclose to your client or itemize on their bill.

Normal equipment would not be shared with the client as this is expected tools necessary to do the job. On special jobs where the tools are not common to the photographer most clients will understand if explained properly.
If the client is briefed on the scale and the possible drop in rates with future work it also can be a benefit.
Normally this is done with established clients, but the logic is still sound. Of course if the photographer doesn't hold up his end, the client is at no loss. So it can make sense for both parties.

With the client in question, a very detailed explanation of what is desired is going to make or break this deal. Kdog needs to pull this idea out of their head in order to get this on paper.
Some clients have an idea that isn't possible, and it then becomes our job to get them to understand and then get the image that works best for their needs. Now I am not saying that this is the case, but their past decisions indicate a very specific idea, and that is all they are looking for.

I like the lighting concept that you have come up with. Doesn't look too easy to transport though.
I am looking forward to seeing some test shots with this setup.

kdog

Cygnus Studios wrote:

With the client in question, a very detailed explanation of what is desired is going to make or break this deal. Kdog needs to pull this idea out of their head in order to get this on paper.
Some clients have an idea that isn't possible, and it then becomes our job to get them to understand and then get the image that works best for their needs. Now I am not saying that this is the case, but their past decisions indicate a very specific idea, and that is all they are looking for.

Yes! The client did pull out some glossy brochures from a much larger vendor in a related market. Lighting was perfect of course and looked like it had been shot in a studio. So that's the benchmark that has been given. Even lighting, no glare, and no shadows. It has been pointed out to me that with no shadows, the scene might look flat and possibly fake. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But my attitude is that if I have to add-in controlled shadows, that will cost extra.

I like the lighting concept that you have come up with. Doesn't look too easy to transport though.
I am looking forward to seeing some test shots with this setup.

Thanks! Getting some independent verification of my idea is comforting.

Thanks again for your input, Steve!
-joel

kdog

So here's one of my reject shots done with two strobes and diffusers (in other words, not done with the new lights I built). Basically this is indicative of what the other photographers have done. Specific complaints are glare, uneven lighting, and shadows. I hope to eliminate all those problems with my new lighting design.


BTW, that is a solid turquoise basin, sandstone vanity, and mirror made from sandstone, turquoise and some other mineral.

They do pretty cool stuff, eh?

-joel

Cygnus Studios

What about shooting everything seperately and putting it together with photoshop?
Guaranteed no shadows. Not sure if that is possible, but more of the large setups similar to this are being shot that way.

Looks like a great job though.

kdog

Cygnus Studios wrote:

What about shooting everything seperately and putting it together with photoshop?
Guaranteed no shadows. Not sure if that is possible, but more of the large setups similar to this are being shot that way.

Interesting! My photocomposition skills aren't that hot. I could develop them, I suppose. But there are a few other challenges as well. Like most of the other scenes have floor-to-ceiling tile/mosaic walls from their gemstone tiles. I can just see me photographing hundreds of tiles individually and recreating the wall in Photoshop.

Cheers,
-joel

Cygnus Studios

Shoot the walls
Shoot the sink
Shoot the table
Shoot the mirror
Shoot the lights
Shoot the faucet
Shoot the towel rack
Shoot the towels
Shoot that little holder on the sink

Anything that can be shot seperately should be. Shoot on white backgrounds so that you can pull the subject out easily and place on any wall background that they need.
You could easily box in the sink and faucet with posterboard and light them from every angle. The wall would be your only challenge, but with nothing blocking the wall, it should be easier.

kdog

Cygnus Studios wrote:

Shoot the walls
Shoot the sink
Shoot the table
Shoot the mirror
Shoot the lights
Shoot the faucet
Shoot the towel rack
Shoot the towels
Shoot that little holder on the sink

Anything that can be shot seperately should be. Shoot on white backgrounds so that you can pull the subject out easily and place on any wall background that they need.
You could easily box in the sink and faucet with posterboard and light them from every angle. The wall would be your only challenge, but with nothing blocking the wall, it should be easier.

Um, sure. Doing anything tonight?

Let's back up. My idea is basically to construct a light-tent around the whole scene to do the best I can. Remember the other scenes I mentioned? Some of them are working kitchens and baths in the owners homes. They probably won't take too kindly to me coming in with a wrecking bar.

Seriously, given my lack of skills in photocomposition like this, combined with the fact most of the scenes can't be dismantled, I'm really going to have to do the best I can with things as they are. Not that I don't like your ideas though. I certainly appreciate hearing how the pros do it, and it sounds like a great skill to have.

Cheers,
-joel

Blaker

Or you could just remove the shadows and glare with photoshop...

kdog

Blaker wrote:

Or you could just remove the shadows and glare with photoshop...

Yeah, after I get the lighting as good as I can, I'll deal with any other artifacts in Photoshop. I actually did take a run at removing the shadows in the above shot. Didn't come out too bad, but it is a laborious operation. The larger problem is getting the lighting perfectly even. That's much harder to fix in Photoshop. And glare is even worse. I guess I tend to live by the mantra that it's always best to get it as close as possible in the camera first.

Tim Kamppinen

One thing that you should seriously consider compositing is the mirror. Won't your wall of light end up being reflected? Even if it's not, you'll have to worry about lighting all the things that ARE being reflected, at the same time as you light the main scene. If you just leave the camera in place on the tripod, shoot the scene with your wall of light, then rework the lighting for just the stuff in the mirror, and take another shot, compositing the two images should be almost trivial, even with limited post-compositing skills. You would only have to create a layer mask over everything but the glass of the mirror.

Or maybe you have a way to light it all at once worked out already? But I'm having trouble seeing how you could do that, maintain the evenness of the light, and not have the lights reflected in the mirror.

kdog

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

One thing that you should seriously consider compositing is the mirror...

Thanks, Tim. Indeed I've been throwing fits trying to figure out what to do about the mirror. Ideally I want to shoot the scene directly from the front, but then I get a nice reflection of myself (I have some of those already.) A friend suggested I "cheat" or angle the mirror slightly away from the wall on one side so that it's reflecting on an angle rather than head on. That combined with your idea of lighting the main scene and target reflection separately and combining them in layers might work well. Another idea is to take the shot through a hole in a black curtain. Or maybe shoot through a hole cut in sheet of foam core. Then I can easily clone out the hole and lens. However, then the mirror will be all black or white, which might not look right. Heck at that point, I may as well just fill the mirror with some color in photoshop. It's something I'm going to have to play with to get right.

Good thought though. Thanks for bringing it up.

-joel