How much are your photos worth?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#1
With more and more people being refered to CS to source for photographers to provide services for however low a budget, someone's bound to take the bait.

IMHO, it's timely to start educating BOTH those coming here to source for photographer as well as the photographers themselves on the worth of their pics.

Similar to photography techniques, there are some basics that a photog must be aware in coming to an agreement for a photo shoot. Be it free or paid.

This may be a taboo on some photographers, so let's see how this thread goes. The aim is to let CSers understand the basics of positioning themselves without getting into a tangle.

Myself too am beginning to understand such concepts. I hope many others more experienced photogs help to share their knowledge so that even if someone wants to undercut the market, they will do so with full knowledge with what they are forgoing.
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#2
Even before shooting, a photographer have to protect his/her own interest with agreements such as Model release, how the photos would be used and what are the bounderies of the usage of your photo.

Ideally, your photos should be sold similarly like a singer sells his/her songs. They might have several sittings for recording sessions, but in the end for every CD that the recording company produce, a small fraction of the cost goes to the singer as royalty. This isn't an issue for celebrity photographers but for people in the streets, it might be daunting to ask for royalties.

Next would be issues regarding the copyrights to the photos that the photographer have taken. Should it belong to the photographer oe should it belong to the employer? As I understand for Singapore Law, it's by default the employer's unless it's specifically written in the signed agreement that the copyrights belongs to you.

Traditionally, the copyright should belong to photographer. Especially so when the photographers hangs on the their negatives with their dear lives.
 

Dec 11, 2005
121
0
0
East End
#3
Bro, legally there are many considerations and many strings attached. But in the real world, sadly,things are not so anymore.
Many years ago photography is big money. Photographers own the copyright to their images and they hold on to that.
Those days one can easily charge $5,000 for a half day shoot. Today, some idiot will charge $50 and give you a roll of film of the same standard - processed.
Well as the French expression goes C'est La Vie.
We all would love to be paid royalties everytime our images are used. But in today's context you give all the trannies to the client and there they belong. Want to be paid a royalty? You'd have to be royalty to get that. Ha ha!
Doing a shoot with models involved? Better make sure your model release states the photographer reserves the right to use the photos wherever and whenever he deems fit.
No, seriously, if any Bro or sis here does shoot professionally, please find out the market rate and charge accordingly. If you're new or have limited equipment, you may have to charge a little less - maybe a couple hundred less. But don't you go spoil market.
As a guide, I charge $1,800 for 3 hours work when I do product shoots. Some here may say "siow ah so high!' but I've been charging this and have a pile of magazines with my images to proof. For those who aren't aware, established studios charge much higher.
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#4
Heartshape said:
Doing a shoot with models involved? Better make sure your model release states the photographer reserves the right to use the photos wherever and whenever he deems fit. .
:thumbsup: This is what this thread should be about. Sharing snippets of "wisdom".

Exactly, there should be many considerations and strings attached. Because, if things gets messy, normally it's the photographer that bares the brunt of the blame.

I don't think it's necessary to blame the person who charges $50, it also the photographer's onus to differenciate his/her "products" from the rest. Though it's easier said than done.

I've got an impression that royalty "concept" is still applicapable to photography however small the amount is. Sad case for photographers if it's non-existant in Sg now.



Does your $1800 means all inclusive? On-site or off-site?

For myself. Covering events, I take the lower tier, starting from $400 for 2 hrs additional 80 per hour or part thereof. Excluding prints which will be $0.80 each. But I do give them all useable low rez pics on CD.
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#5
Maybe this thread is in the wrong sub-forum.

Should it be in "General, Reviews, Tech Talk" sub-forum instead? :think: :dunno:
 

#6
Heartshape said:
No, seriously, if any Bro or sis here does shoot professionally, please find out the market rate and charge accordingly. If you're new or have limited equipment, you may have to charge a little less - maybe a couple hundred less. But don't you go spoil market.
As a guide, I charge $1,800 for 3 hours work when I do product shoots. Some here may say "siow ah so high!' but I've been charging this and have a pile of magazines with my images to proof. For those who aren't aware, established studios charge much higher.
bro, NPNT! hahaha

wa... u're paid so high! u must be making a living as a photographer!
6hrs work and u earn more than i do in a month!:bigeyes:

good for u!
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#8
Heartshape said:
No, seriously, if any Bro or sis here does shoot professionally, please find out the market rate and charge accordingly. If you're new or have limited equipment, you may have to charge a little less - maybe a couple hundred less. But don't you go spoil market.
As a guide, I charge $1,800 for 3 hours work when I do product shoots. Some here may say "siow ah so high!' but I've been charging this and have a pile of magazines with my images to proof. For those who aren't aware, established studios charge much higher.
You advocate finding out the market rate and charge accordingly.

Yet you charge at a rate that is lower (? much lower) than the "established studios" (these charge "much higher")

And I think your justification for charging lower than the "established studios" may be that you are not an "established studio"?

So, using your logic, since I am much less "established" than you, can I also charge "much lower" than you?

And therefore "spoil the market"?

But then, I am only following what you did. I am only following your example.

How about some consistency please?
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#9
Hehehee.
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#10
This is exactly the reason for the existance of this thread. Some think the price are too high, yet others might feel that these are peanuts.

What was not specified are the details on how are such prices arrived. If you use 2x1Dsm2 with what ever setup... I dun think charging $400 per job would even cover your shutter servicing.:sweat:

For those photgraphers with a dedicated studio/boutique, such overheads would have to be accounted into the charges too. Else how to cover your bills.

I hope that I'm not opening a can of worms here, just trying to create some awareness on the business side of photography.

Else if any price also grab, then CSers shouldn't even "complain" about undercutting, el-cheapo competition, or volunteering for free pics when this forum becomes a sourcing ground for undercutting photogs.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#12
Sorry I forgot to quote student's repsonse. I was agreeing by amusement at the logical way he sets out his post to Heartshape's post.

Genesis said:
May I know why you find this thread amusing?
 

Chiang

New Member
Feb 17, 2005
153
0
0
Bedok
#13
to every 1 that a takes a photograph and likes it,
that photo itself will be priceless.
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#15
vince123123 said:
Sorry I forgot to quote student's repsonse. I was agreeing by amusement at the logical way he sets out his post to Heartshape's post.
Oh! Hahaha. Yep, I couldn't fault Student's perspective.

But I like to explain that "market rates" are not fixed pricing, but rather derived from a set of pricing mechanisim that will add up to the final pricing.

If everyone would just use a simple concept of hourly rate reference... let's say from $8 per hour + equipments depreciation, one might arrive at the base cost of shooting. Others might even add transportation and meals or development cost. Then whatever additional cost could be "profit".

I do hope that all photgraphers in Singapore to at least work out and charge their respective "base cost".

Why even when you send something to repair, there's still a "service charge" or administrative fees. Do Singaporeans challange such practices? Then why would they be challanging a basic cost for the photographer's work.
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#16
Chiang said:
to every 1 that a takes a photograph and likes it,
that photo itself will be priceless.
I'm just trying to explain how derive economical value of the services provided.

The "artistic" priceing of the photos is up to the valuator, not the photographer. Even if the photographer have emotional attachment to some photos.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#17
I am no economist. But I do understand the concepts of supply and demand.

In a market economy, why make issues of how much people charge?

Everything will come to a level, unless protectionism comes into play.
 

Dennis

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,881
0
0
Singapore
8dennis8.fotki.com
#18
Ohhh I better apply for a copyright to that. :bsmilie:
BTW better say something related so as not to go OT. ;p
I agree to charging by timed rates including your post processing if any but not including the equipment depreciation cost because owning a expensive setup does not make you a better photographer than one who use a more down to earth setup.
A better setup does indeed gives better outcome at times but that should be the extra that will give you the edge so that more people will want to have your service and/or quality.

sammy888 said:
Damn...that is just my sentiment on the issue heheheh.....This tagline is not copyright yet right? heheh....
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#19
student said:
I am no economist. But I do understand the concepts of supply and demand.

In a market economy, why make issues of how much people charge?

Everything will come to a level, unless protectionism comes into play.
Yes, there are ample supply. But does it need to be free supply?

Take resale of HDB flats for example, have been pretty much in the slump, but at least there's a value to it. And how much is the valuation depends on a few factors like location envrioment...etc. Similary, for photography, there's positioning and marketing and not to mention salesmanship.

But I digress, I'm hoping that this thread help to allevate "free services" syndrom that is getting virulent here. What I'm trying to get to is to check if any kind CSer can help by providing some references as to how can wannabe's price their services rendered.
 

Mar 30, 2005
24
0
0
#20
Dennis said:
I agree to charging by timed rates including your post processing if any but not including the equipment depreciation cost because owning a expensive setup does not make you a better photographer than one who use a more down to earth setup.
A better setup does indeed gives better outcome at times but that should be the extra that will give you the edge so that more people will want to have your service and/or quality.
Normally, business accounting would put assets depreciation into the equation. But for a free lancer it's another way on how to calculate.

Also, it can be quite hard to give timed rates for post processing as it's not tangible to a lot customers, especally those who does not appreciate digital photography.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom