need some perspective

jpc · June 15, 2012

A contractor has approached me to photograph their work. It would be a 2-hour shoot. They like the HDR look they've seen in some of my other galleries, so post-processing will be heavy. I explained that for every hour I shoot, I'm looking at about 8 hrs of work in post. I quoted $300, including all of the processed, unwatermarked pics at 600 x 400 pixels, with licensing to use them in online galleries and in industry mags, online or in print, with a byline credit. Any other usage or larger files would require separate licensing.

I'm thinking this was a fair offer, but their "old photographer" was in the habit of just dumping his memory card on a CD and letting them do whatever they wanted with the pics, so the whole licensing issue has them spooked. I'd like to know if anyone thinks my offer is unreasonable, or if you have any suggestions as to how I might counter if they don't accept the proposal.

Thanks

mercphoto · June 15, 2012

In theory there would be nothing wrong with you granting them a royalty free license rather than a rights managed license. I would ask myself a few questions. Do I want to negotiate a new license all the time whenever they need to do something new? Do I want to be tracking if they are obeying those licenses or not? Can I get a royalty free license fee that makes me happy given the work I put into it? Me personally, I'd rather do RF than RM.

jpc · June 15, 2012

The usage I was willing to license was exactly what they said they wanted to do with the images: on their website, in their Picasa gallery and in trade magazines. So, "in theory" there shouldn't be tons of negotiation. And by limiting the file size, it would at least preclude anything major being done in print. Tracking is, of course, impossible.

A RM license keeps the cost down up front, and I could tell that $300 was more than they expected. If this was all straight out of camera stuff, I might be able to live with a RF license, but even then, that $300 number would be off the table. And again, if you look at what they want to do with the pics, this gives them exactly what they wanted. They're just used to having no restrictions whatsoever, even if they're never an issue.

RF would no doubt be easier, but they won't want to pay for it.

mercphoto · June 15, 2012

Might be worth passing on the job then.

Or turn into the ultimate sales man.

You made some good points about RM keeping their upfront costs down. You let them know how much time REALLY goes into this (in other words, they won't think they're paying $150 per hour now). They like your work, ask them if they can tell that what you do is quite a bit more involved, and much higher visual impact, than simply handing over a CD straight out of the camera. Then make it emotional for them: if you want my look, it doesn't come straight out of the camera, and it isn't fast and easy for me to produce. It takes time, effort. And its worth every penny.

Which trade magazines? Do you have access to past issues? In other words, can you show them exactly how much better their business will look in the trade magazine?

Pure Energy · June 15, 2012

I like the HDR look on a few photos I have seen (sometimes it's overused) but I have not bothered to learn the technique for post-processing yet.

It does sound like there might be more of an issue with cost than the overall look so why not give them a price on some standard processing of the images. If you're a better photographer than most, maybe come up with a price for no processing if you're comfortable doing that. That way, they might be able to better understand the difference between you and the previous photographer. Your goal is for them to see the value you can offer them and to be hired without hesitation for whatever they may desire.

jpc · June 15, 2012

They've already seen my work, which is why they contacted me. They just weren't prepared for the price and terms. This is what happens when the bar is set to an unrealistic level by my predecessor. Yes, my work is better, but now I have to find out how much better they think it is.

Yes, I could offer versions with less processing, but that's not what I do and it's why they came to me in the first place. I'm going to stick to my guns, but I thought I'd run it by some peers and see if I was making a reasonable offer.

Thanks for your input.

Cygnus Studios · June 15, 2012

jpc wrote: »

I quoted $300, including all of the processed, unwatermarked pics at 600 x 400 pixels, with licensing to use them in online galleries and in industry mags, online or in print, with a byline credit. Any other usage or larger files would require separate licensing.

First off, 600x400 is pretty much unusable for any type of print, so you are basically short changing the client.

Second, a byline credit is a useless feature for the commercial photographer. Commercial clients aren't looking at photo credits to hire photographers. The normal people are who looking at trade publications aren't hiring commercial photographers.

Third, separate licensing for a small 300 dollar client? Little clients pay to get a job done, simple as that. What possible reason could you have not to give them the images for the pay negotiated? Do these images have other commercial applications beyond this client? What other way would you make money with these particular images that you need to limit what the clients do with them?

jpc wrote: »

I'm thinking this was a fair offer.

It doesn't shock me at all that they are not thrilled with your offer. They are looking to solve a simple problem and you are complicating it.

jpc · June 15, 2012

Thanks for the perspective!

First off, 600x400 is pretty much unusable for any type of print, so you are basically short changing the client.

It's big enough for a 1/4 page in an e-mag @ 150 dpi and it's perfect for their website, Facebook and Picasa, which were specific requests. It is intentionally too small for print media. The byline credit gets me a credible addition to my portfolio. That's all.

Third, separate licensing for a small 300 dollar client? Little clients pay to get a job done, simple as that. What possible reason could you have not to give them the images for the pay negotiated? Do these images have other commercial applications beyond this client? What other way would you make money with these particular images that you need to limit what the clients do with them?

I never said they were a small client, but I'm glad you think it's a small number. They do extremely high-end work and are at the top of their game. If they ever wanted to use one of my pics to run an ad or print a brochure, that could easily make a single full-resolution pic worth at least $300 all by itself, don't you think? Also, what I should have mentioned is that they intend to publish a book in the near future. If they're using my images to help sell a book, that obviously calls for additional compensation.

It doesn't shock me at all that they are not thrilled with your offer. They are looking to solve a simple problem and you are complicating it.

I actually don't know that they're not thrilled with my offer, they just haven't signed the contract, yet. I totally agree that my proposal is more complicated than their previous arrangement, but given the circumstances, how could it not be? A royalty-free solution would certainly be simpler, but also more expensive.

I'm trying to make a deal that we can both live with on this job and future jobs, while laying groundwork that will help to avoid any misunderstandings in the future. So, having said all of that and knowing everything I know, what would you offer if they shoot down the proposal?

Photogbiker · June 15, 2012

The other side
A bit of perspective from the other side. I have worked for a very large (top ten US) contractor and for a while headed up business development (sales) and marketing. As an amateur photog I was always very aware of the value of good photographers and their copyright making sure we bought all uses and generally paid a fair day rate plus the cost for post on the ones we picked.

From that perspective I would thank you for the quote, and pass. Any client wants a vendor to make their life and the transaction easy. I am too busy to call and buy more rights if I want to run a bigger ad. Actually, the main use of the photos is to decorate the office (large prints) and to create our own brochures for very limited distribution plus web site of course. We also put together proposal books for clients in runs of 6-10 many times per month. If I want a half page in those I have to call you and pay more?

The amount does not seem unreasonable to me. We often paid up to a couple thousand for a top architectural photog and occasionally split fee with the architect on the job. In every case we each got all rights, and no way would I allow a watermark on the pic. Of course the photog knew we weren't going to put up a national ad with billboards and People magazine--not our business model. Maybe a rare magazine pic if we wrote an article (photo credit in this case) or a full page ad once or twice per year in a trade mag. Again, not worth my time if I had to call and pay additional to run a full page ad instead of a 1/4. You'll get a lot more business from contractor recommending you to others than any credit in a trade mag.

Bottom line is in photography, as in construction, we all have competition and the client is going to go not only to who can do the best job but to who will be great service, no hassle, and make their life easy. I don't know your client, but to me the rights issue is much more of a deterrent than the price quoted. I would come back to you and fully explain potential uses, show you our brochure and proposals, and then ask for an all-rights price (maybe I'd exclude billboards). If that price was reasonable I'd go for it, if not I'd pass. I wouldn't bend at all on the rights strictly from the hassle standpoint. ($300 for a couple hour shoot and post on just a couple pics is reasonable in the contractor world. More pics or full day working all angles of a prominent job is more) Reality is contractors are not ad agencies, once the digital file is in the marketing dept hands they use it for anything they want and can't keep track of what rights they own on which pics. All, or no thanks.

PS the best angle for making the extra cheese is to negotiate in that you can also sell same pic to architect and owner. Or take a few different views and sell each a slight variant. Not a ton more time for the same full fee.

Photogbiker · June 15, 2012

Ps....
Don't forget the subcontractors. The general contractor can provide you a list of subs and you sell the mason a shot of the brickwork, the roofer the roof, the landscaper an exterior shot,.......

Glort · June 16, 2012

jpc wrote: »

I explained that for every hour I shoot, I'm looking at about 8 hrs of work in post.

I have been a working photographer for more than 25 years now and what I haven't shot at one time or another isn't worth mentioning. I have done a lot of commercial and some real estate and have been using Digital for over 10 years.

For the life of me, I cannot begin to understand how anyone can spend 8 hours processing 1 hours worth of Photographs for material of this type. If I was faced with that, I'd think I had stuffed up badly and go back and re shoot the pics properly in the first place.
This seems an inefficiency totally and utterly beyond my comprehension. Whatever you do don't try and shoot real estate pics.

I also don't understand how anyone can either justify that or the price you are in fact charging.
Going by your numbers, there is 18 hours work in this job. At $300, that's about $16. 60 an hour and does not include any travel or other possible and practical expenses.
No wonder they are spooked with the mixed messages you are sending them.
To be perfectly honest, if anyone came to me and said it took them 2 days to process a 2 hour job of this type, I'd laugh at them to their face and tell them to come back when they understood how the real world works rather than Forum fantasy land.

Your hourly rate needs to in fact cover more than a days work. If you are happy shooting at effectively $150 a day for 9 hours, You should be the busiest photographer out there..... if you can still afford to eat and be in business for more than about a month.

I also believe you are over complicating and under servicing your client and for no justifiable reason.
Sorry, but to charge tiddly wink money for the job and then go on like it is a shoot for a world wide advertising Campaign for Coke or D&G makes no sense to me.
You are putting what I believe is an inflated value on your work with all the licensing agreements and pissant size files you want to give them, but then you are charging yourself out at mere pocket money.
Makes no sense to me.

I wish you were in my part of the world though. I'd employ you full time for $16.50 an hour because here I am looking at paying 18-19 yo girls $20 an hour Min on a casual basis to hand people their prints and put their credit card through. And there are not a lot of them that will accept that rate either!
You would be the cheapest shooter ever heard of here, providing you can actually shoot worthwhile material.
Matter of fact, for that money I'd stay at home lining up the work and just send you out to shoot it. But I would process the images myself because there is no way a business could survive the way you say you work.
Geez, I'd employ 10 of you the first month then 10 a week after that.
I could sew the photography market up with labour that cheap.

I quoted $300, including all of the processed, unwatermarked pics at 600 x 400 pixels, with licensing to use them in online galleries and in industry mags, online or in print, with a byline credit. Any other usage or larger files would require separate licensing.

Yeah, I have over the years picked up quite a few jobs from people that have confused and essentially pizzed off the clients with this sort of thing.
These clients don't understand, want to know or are interested in licencing crap and file res etc. they want to work like they do. Pay a person to do the job, get the product or service and that's it.
They don't get to send the owner a new bill every time a new tenant moves into a house they built or worked on. They don't expect to be paying anyone else on the same basis.

And a byline???
Really, has ANYONE ever scored a job and had a client ring and say, " I saw your name in a mag on a pic I liked and not knowing where you actually were, I rang every shooter in the country with that name till I found you."
C'mon! If people are that intreauged with your work they will ring the company that have their name on the ad and ask for your number. That has happened to me a couple of times.

I'm thinking this was a fair offer, but their "old photographer" was in the habit of just dumping his memory card on a CD and letting them do whatever they wanted with the pics, so the whole licensing issue has them spooked. I'd like to know if anyone thinks my offer is unreasonable, or if you have any suggestions as to how I might counter if they don't accept the proposal.

Doesn't matter a hoot what you think is a fair offer, if the client doesnt, your sunk.
I would be like the old shooter more or less. I'd edit the pics ( 2 hours tops), put them on a cd and say Thanks very much, seeya next time.
Which I probably would given past experience.

Like was said, what are the people going to do with the shots outside of what they told you and who cares if they use them for something else anyway? In my experience if they did use them for a national advertising campaign later on, who do you think they are going to come back to next time they need pics done?

And really 640x480????
If we were still in the days of film, would you give them postcard size pics of the images you shot and took all this time to process?
At least give them something that looks like money well spent and they can see the detail in when they look at it on their computers.
I reckon if you do get the job, it will be the one and only. Imagine them showing other people the pics they got the chit hot photographer in to do that are so damn small they can't even see them. In that business I reckon they would be ridiculed for paying anyone to produce postage stamps.
Give them something they can see full screen on a computer monitor at least FFS!

Is your offer unreasonable?
No, but it probably seems like you are a greedy tosser to the people that want to hire you. I'd also say it certainly wouldn't stand out as value for money to THESE clients, Probably the exact opposite.

What to counter with?
No idea. seems you have painted yourself into a corner here. anything you might counter with is going to make you look greedy or a BS artist in the first place. I reckon I can sell but I'd hate to be trying to put the wheels back on that deal and come out looking creditable.

This is a simple job for people who are no doubt and rightly so, expecting a simple transaction. Pay the money, get the product, thanks very much. Either you ought to have Charged them $3K to justify the importance and time you built the job up to be or you should just hand over a copy of the best edited shots at some sort of decent res ( why limit it in any case? ) without all the complication.

They may like your work but I'll guarantee they don't like the strings you are putting on it and have no understanding or care for why that may be.

You need to put the shoe on the other foot and see things from their side not just yours.

jpc · June 16, 2012

Glort - Thanks for your expected acerbic reply

I do appreciate your insight. As I mentioned, all they want to do with the pics (at the moment) is use them on their website and in a Picasa gallery and on Facebook. 600 x 400 is the right size for those applications and it's also enough for a 1/4 page in e-mags, which is what primarily what they've done in the past. And again, the byline isn't intended to get me jobs. If you'll read my previous post, it's only so I can include published pics in my portfolio. That's all. As far as the amount of precessing time is concerned, you're right. I could spend less time processing and offer a less-than-amazing product. Hopefully I won't have to resort to that.

Photogbiker - Thank you for your perspective. That's invaluable information, considering your experience from the "other side". It occurred to me that the contractor and I never actually discussed the quantity of pics they expected to see from the job. If I'm thinking 30 stitched HDR panoramas, and they're thinking 6 shots, well then there's definitely room to tweak this.

PS the best angle for making the extra cheese is to negotiate in that you can also sell same pic to architect and owner. Or take a few different views and sell each a slight variant. Not a ton more time for the same full fee.

Great idea, but the problem is, once I give them hi-res files and they upload them, everyone on the planet has them, making this a one-time sale, which is why I wanted to limit the file sizes, initially. They don't need anything bigger than 600 x 400 for what they want to do. I'm also concerned with the book they intend to publish down the road. How much is a full page in their book worth?

This is definitely all about the "strings". If I can limit the number of pics, I might be able to get rid them. I'll work in that direction.

Thanks again to all.

Sam · June 16, 2012

Be offended if you like, but after reading this If I were the customer I would simply say thank you and get another photographer.

This is a pretty small job. Not worth the all the drama.

I think I would have the job shot and delivered by the time you were calling to check on the status of your quote.

Sam

jpc · June 16, 2012

Thanks, Sam. Not offended, that's why I posted.

Glort · June 17, 2012

jpc wrote: »

As far as the amount of precessing time is concerned, you're right. I could spend less time processing and offer a less-than-amazing product. Hopefully I won't have to resort to that.

"less than amazing product"
For that amount of time they would want to be nothing less than earth shattering!
Can I ask exactly what it is you are being asked to photograph in the first place?
I never insinuated you should lower the quality of your work and I think you know that. The word I used was efficiency.

If that's the amount of time you need process images, I don't think photography is something you would do well with as a full time occupation.

Demian · June 17, 2012

Why worry about them getting on the web? You gave a vague description, but it seems like you wouldn't have much option to sell these pics elsewhere. And if you did manage to, you'd probably annoy the contractor and shoot yourself in the foot for future deals - If you sell one pic and they find out about it, they're gonna assume you're making money on the pics outside them when they negotiate future jobs.

I think licensing is a bad idea.... but if you do it, you need to put all the options upfront. If you negotiate licensing when needed, they're only going to ask about pricing when they really need it; A rather unfavorable spot it be in (and they know it.) No manager in his right mind would put himself in that position.

Again, hard to say without knowing the specifics, but my guess is that you'll make more money and work less if you just sell the photos RF.

jpc · June 17, 2012

If that's the amount of time you need process images, I don't think photography is something you would do well with as a full time occupation.

You might be right, Glort. Maybe that's just how long I spend processing because I enjoy it. I'm sure I could get it done in less time if I had to.

I think licensing is a bad idea.... but if you do it, you need to put all the options upfront. If you negotiate licensing when needed, they're only going to ask about pricing when they really need it; A rather unfavorable spot it be in (and they know it.) No manager in his right mind would put himself in that position

Makes sense. I thought I was giving them exactly what they asked for by clearly defining the usage, and at the same time giving them lots of pics while keeping their upfront cost relatively low. The complication might outweigh that benefit.

From Photogbiker: The amount does not seem unreasonable to me. We often paid up to a couple thousand for a top architectural photog and occasionally split fee with the architect on the job. In every case we each got all rights, and no way would I allow a watermark on the pic. Of course the photog knew we weren't going to put up a national ad with billboards and People magazine--not our business model. Maybe a rare magazine pic if we wrote an article (photo credit in this case) or a full page ad once or twice per year in a trade mag. Again, not worth my time if I had to call and pay additional to run a full page ad instead of a 1/4. You'll get a lot more business from contractor recommending you to others than any credit in a trade mag.

If I offer a RF alternative, I'm going to need to come up with a per-shot value. That's how they're going to look at it. When you paid $2k for a pro architectural photographer, how many files did they provide? I'm obviously not at that level, I'm just looking for a basis of comparison.

Glort · June 17, 2012

jpc wrote: »

I explained that for every hour I shoot, I'm looking at about 8 hrs of work in post.

As far as the amount of precessing time is concerned, you're right. I could spend less time processing and offer a less-than-amazing product. Hopefully I won't have to resort to that.

Maybe that's just how long I spend processing because I enjoy it. I'm sure I could get it done in less time if I had to.

And maybe the story is changing and you are just saying what you think is appropriate at the time to try and cover your arse?
Everyone is telling you the same thing but you are trying to justify yourself anyway possible than just admit you approached the job the wrong way.

Everyone makes mistakes but it's a lot more creditable to accept the advise you asked for ( especially when it's unanamous and from people a lot more experienced than yourself) than to keep trying to justify your actions so as not to look like you made a mistake in the first place.

I think rather than hear what people thought, what you were really after was advise on how to try and salvage the job you realise you have pretty much blown out of the water.
You may be able to salvage this one but I think You'll have to be Houdini to ever have them come back no matter how amazing your product is and how much time you spend enjoying yourself at the customers expense photo fiddling the images to massage your own ego.

If I offer a RF alternative, I'm going to need to come up with a per-shot value. That's how they're going to look at it.

I doubt that is how the client is going to look at it. You are still looking at what suits your needs not the clients.
They are going to look at it as getting the job they want done with the straightforward simplicity and lack of hassle they expect. The fact you still can't relate to what the client wants is a distinct worry.

I think whatever you offer now you're going to have to come up with a bloody good justification for the back peddle you are going to have to do and make yourself look like a professional and not an incompetent.
As I said before, I have no idea how to pull that off. Personally, having dug myself into a hole like that, I'd just walk away to prevent embarrassing myself any further and put it down as a lesson learnt.
No matter what you do now you have given the power base to the client and they will never really respect your opinion or take what you say seriously or put trust in it.
That is a bad place to be dealing from

I thought I was giving them exactly what they asked for by clearly defining the usage, and at the same time giving them lots of pics while keeping their upfront cost relatively low.
The complication might outweigh that benefit.

Really? What gave you the clue??
And what questions did you ask the client that lead you to think that licensing the usage and all the complication with that was what they asked for, especially after they obviously told you about what the last shooter did?
Did they mention anything about licensing or indicate they were unhappy with the last guys way of doing business?

I think the best you can do from this is to swallow your pride, realise you went overboard on this simple job and not be so anal and make the same mistake with the next client.
Also realise that what you read on the net doesn't always work in the real world.
While the client may prefer your work to the old photographer's, clearly his business approach, as much as you may ridicule it, was far more preferable to yours.

The reality is, they may yet go back to him and point out your style of work and ask if he can do the same. If he's the least bit cluey, he probably will be able to give them something they are happy with as a product and as a business transaction.

My son can do GREAT HDR's with extra editing in 5 minutes flat. Whilst you may think that your product you have spent however long on enjoying yourself is superior, Chances are the client will be quite easily pleased with what the other guy produces. That being the likely case, your "amazing product" isn't even going to get on the batting line up let alone first base.

jpc · June 17, 2012

Good greif, Glort - lighten up!

Photogbiker - Still curious as to how many pics you were used to seeing from your photographer.

Thanks

Sam · June 17, 2012

I didn't see any real estate photos on your website, with or without HDR., so I can offer no opinion there.
Also I still don't know what the client actually requested.

You may not like what Glort is saying but it does have the ring of truth.

Who do you want to do business with, the co that offers all kinds of plans, and services with a complex rate and usage schedule or the co that says $50.00 per mo and you can talk as long and often as you want as well as play on the internet as long as you like?

You want to make it easy for the client to hire you. The more explaining and rationalizing you need to do the less likely you will get the job.

Sam

orljustin · June 18, 2012

Sam wrote: »

Be offended if you like, but after reading this If I were the customer I would simply say thank you and get another photographer.

This is a pretty small job. Not worth the all the drama.

I think I would have the job shot and delivered by the time you were calling to check on the status of your quote.

Sam

Yep. I would charge them a half day rate of $600, a day of processing at $1200, and unlimited usage at $2000 for up to 5 images with a size of 2000x2000.

Glort · June 18, 2012

orljustin wrote: »

Yep. I would charge them a half day rate of $600, a day of processing at $1200, and unlimited usage at $2000 for up to 5 images with a size of 2000x2000.

And the client would say :

Holy Chit!
We asked a guy about this job the other day and he was only going to charge like $300!!
You are like 12 Times the price!!

The other guy wanted us to pay more every time we used the shots although we really didn't understand why. He had all these contracts and stuff as well which seemed sus. Why should we pay him more every time we wanted to use a picture we had already paid him to take and was ours??
He reckoned it was going to take him 2 days to edit the pictures he took. Not sure the guy really knows what he's doing.
I think there was a catch in it somewhere, it was too complicated just for a few pictures.

And you want $3800 and we can do what we want with the pics right?

Great, when can you do the photos?

Cygnus Studios · June 18, 2012

jpc wrote: »

If I offer a RF alternative, I'm going to need to come up with a per-shot value.

You are seriously over thinking this. In the business of photography, about 5% of your success is found in the images that you take.

Having someone who likes your pictures is great, but if you can't sell them you won't be in business long.

You have to remember that most people consider photography as pushing a button. That's it. They don't care what you had to do before, during or after to get the shot, they only want the shot.

People don't have time to deal with someone who is constantly trying to milk them for every penny.

When you read someone posting about all these different formulas for licensing this or that, ask the person if they are making their living with photography.

Our studio has thousands of images published on websites, catalogs, newspapers, and magazines, and there isn't a single one of our photographers who gives a crap about a photo credit. There is an old saying in the commercial world, "Take the cash, leave the credit."

Glort · June 18, 2012

When you read someone posting about all these different formulas for licensing this or that, ask the person if they are making their living with photography.

Excellent Point!!!

need some perspective

Comments