How Much do I charge? For your consideration

[IndyJeff]

There have been countless threads on this forum from people asking for a price for anything from a single photo to be published to how much to charge for a shooting assignment.

Some say they don't want to make any money from this photo just a few bucks. Others say they don't want any pay at all just a photo credit to get their name out there or to see it in a paper with their photo credit.
Quick tell me the name of the photographer who took the last shot you saw in your local paper that made you say WOW!!What a shot! Can't remember his name? Nobody will remember yours either


There are also threads which talk about using some of these online stock agencies, which pay next to nothing.

Now consider this, if you support one of these online agencies by supplying them with images or, if you are willing to give your images away just for a credit consider the ramifications of those acts.

Let's say that a year down the road you and the little Mr/Mrs decide you want to buy some lake front property for a weekend home and possible to retire to in the future. How can you afford this? Hey I know, I can start selling my images instead of basically giving them away.
So now you start looking around for someplace to represent you, a stock agency or a photo agent. Hmmmm, your having some trouble finding one now. Why? Because editors have used Istock or some of the other give away stock agencies and have found that they can find something on there which will meet their needs. Why pay another agency $800 for that stock photo when they can get one for $4.00?
You finally get in contact by telephone with an editor at The Best Damn Stock Agency in the World. You explain you have quite a collection of great images. He asks if you have ever sold any of them. "Yes, lots of them on istock.com" CLICK "Hello? Hello?"

Now you decide that maybe you will call the paper that ran your hs football shots for the last 4 years and see if they would be interested in hiring you to cover the local hs sporting events, nothing major in the way of pay. Maybe $75 a game. Guess what? They would love to have you do it but, it doesn't pay anything. Why should they start to pay you now. You have been doing it for 4 years at no charge. You won't work for free anymore? Fine, Johnny Gotshots has a new camera and has been bugging them for the last 3 months with wanting to submit his shots from the hs game.

Maybe you can contact a calendar company and see if they would be interested in taking a look at your landscapes and wildlife shots. Nope, they don't accept submissions anymore. All their images come from istock or a similar agency. Sorry but we have stockholders who are now making $35 a share instead of $2.00 and they love it.

Oh there will always be sources which will pay "pro" rates but, they will have a strict list of people whom they accept images from and you ain't on that list now nor will you be on it in this or anyother lifetime. Because of your actions in the past there is no longer a market for your photos that will pay you. Your work now has no value and the freebie agencies and photo credit only guys are where you can look to to see why the market is gone.
So you have to tell the Mr/Mrs that there is no way we can afford that lakeside cottage, sorry dear.

One thing you have to understand, any image you create has value. Some more than others. If someone contacts you and wants to use that photo for X use, it has a value. If they are not willing to pay you for it's use then it has little value, to them at least. They will find something suitable for their needs and some other schmuck will be thrilled that his photo was used. Guess what? You both got paid the same....nothing!

Now consider this, remember the shot of President Clinton shaking hands with people and Monica Lewinsky is in the crowd with her little beret on? How much revenue did that single photo generate? My guess would be close to $100,000 and I would be willing to bet that when the photo first ran, nobody knew who Monica Lewinsky was.
How about the shot of Jack Ruby sticking his gun in the belly of Lee Harvey Oswald? Oswalds mouth open showing the agony of pain from that gun shot. How much revenue did that generate? Probably more than 1/4 of a million $$$.
Ok so those were both newsworthy events, you don't ever shoot stuff like that. Everyone has seen a shot of the NYC skyline, the Jefferson Memorial at night reflecting off the water, how about a shot of a palace guard at Buckingham Palace? Not really newsworthy really but, still anyone of those images have raked in enough money to buy the entire line of Canon L lenses.
Can you afford to give away a single image that may turn into one of those once in a lifetime shots?
Give away your copyright, sell it for .20 a download over the internet, sell it for a photo credit and then think of how you will feel when all of a sudden you see that image which you have hanging on your wall and are so proud of being republished everywhere. In magazines, on TV programs, billboards, ads in magazines and newspapers.
When you get that sick to your stomach feeling because you gave that image away and now you realize that one image alone, made more in the last 6 months in revenue than you will make working 40 hours a week for the next 10 years, put the gun down and send ol' IndyJeff and email. Let me know that image is yours and you wished more than anything in the world you would have heeded the advice given by KennyG, VWPilot, RFMSports, Bloo Dog, myself and countless others to charge for your work because you now realize.....IT HAS VALUE!!!!!

[KennyG]

Jeff, absolutely excellent points. I have just told a major publication to take a hike. They called me to say they have found someone to give them work for free this year and want me to now do the same. They can stew in their own juices as far as I am concerned and their biggest competitor had a call from me a few minutes after (a deal was struck).

I had one image earn me over $3,000. You would be amazed how many calls/mails I received wanting it for free. Most were very offended when I refused. I loved one comment "Well, it cost you nothing to shoot other than pressing a button". I rolled around on the floor laughing at that one for hours.

Cheap or for free stock agencies can only survive as long as there are people sending them images for nothing. Unfortunately there appears to be a lot of people prepared to prostitute themselves just to see their name in lights and some agencies are quite happy to act as their pimps.

A friend of mine earned $150,000 from one motorsport picture over three years. It was bought over and over again and he still expects some income from it this year. You just never know when you have that 'golden goose'.

Great post, I enjoyed reading it and hopefully some of it will sink in with other readers.

[FlipsidE]

I hope this doesn't come across as a stupid question, but what about those shoots for very close friends and family in which you just give them a CD with images and let them print as many as they like? I have at least one shoot lined up with the above terms. Of course these photos are worth money, but at the same time, I'm also getting some good experience under my belt (being the amateur I am).

So, to all you pros out there, what do you think of this kind of situation? Does it cause damage like what Jeff talked about? Or are these just worthwhile freebies to help out good friends or family?

Thanks

FlipsidE

[Vegas Poboy]

Jeff that was very well put & hopefully everyone who ever decides to sell a photograph will read & understand the REAL value of the images they capture. In school they tell us if someone wants it then it has some value & never sell yourself short & never give up full copyrights unless they pay you at least four + figures.

[Vegas Poboy]

I hope this doesn't come across as a stupid question, but what about those shoots for very close friends and family in which you just give them a CD with images and let them print as many as they like? I have at least one shoot lined up with the above terms. Of course these photos are worth money, but at the same time, I'm also getting some good experience under my belt (being the amateur I am).

So, to all you pros out there, what do you think of this kind of situation? Does it cause damage like what Jeff talked about? Or are these just worthwhile freebies to help out good friends or family?

Thanks

FlipsidE

Of course family & friends & children sports has some limitations to the pricing. Myself friends and family gets charged regular rates - 1/3. I explain to them its a business & they may be taking time from full paying jobs.
I believe Jeff is writing about the photographers who wants to see thier name in publication & giving the work away that could bring in big dollars. Companies know the real value of a photography to market thier products and will hire in house or fly by night photographers to save $$$. I found out this week that a full page ad in Time magazine cost around $300,000.00 per week. Now why would you sell a photo for $100.00 when a company will pay that much for a one week ad?
This is info that floats around in our photography classes :)

[IndyJeff]

Flipside about 4 years ago I attended a family reunion/grandmas (85th)birthday party. I took a group shot of all 53 of us. Everybody wanted a print. No problem I kept saying. Well before I know it, people are wanting 5x7's and 8x10's. Needless to say it got pretty expensive.
So last year for the annual party/reunion I took photos again. This time I posted them to my website, gave everyone a card and said go buy all you want. One cousin said your going to charge us for the pictures? I explained that after the 85th party, I spent about $75 on prints and postage. She couldn't believe it.
I priced them so as I covered the print cost, commission for hosting, credit card transaction but didn't make much more than a few cents per print. One cousin ordered about $28 worth.
Nobody complained and all were happy they were able to get the prints so easily.

The point being, yes there are times when you are acting as uncle Fred snapping off shots of a family gathering or helping out an old friend by providing photography of his kids party etc. But how much money are you willing to put out to provide your service?

I have actually done 2 weddings. Neither one was a paying job. One was for friends of mine who couldn't really afford a photographer and it became my gift. The other was a family friend who was getting married and they too couldn't afford a photographer. I did this as a favor for the grooms mom & dad. In each case had I not been willing to do it, there would have been no photographer to shoot the weddings.

Recently I was asked to do two jobs, one a wedding (the spirit of bloo dog was calling to me) which I declined to do. These people have parents which could have afforded to pay a photographer but they thought I would do it for free. I hadn't even received an invitation to the wedding when they asked me, still hasn't come in the mail and the wedding was in November.
The other was to do a family reunion this memorial day weekend. I asked the guy what kind of budget he had in mind. His reply was, "Oh hell I didn't think you would charge me." Then I explained that weekend on Friday I would be at my son's hs graduation, Saturday I would be at parties for him and my two nephews who are also graduating, packing up and heading into the track after midnight. Sunday I have the Indy 500 to cover and on Monday morning I would be back at the track for the winners photo shoot about 9am and be there until maybe 11am. After that, I planned on sleeping a good portion of the day as has become the custom in the last 11 years. I would be willing to forgo any of the aforementioned events except the graduation but, the price would be steep, very steep for missing the 500 and even steeper for missing my day of rest on Monday.

There comes a point where you stop being uncle Fred and become a photographer. Only you cna make the determination of when that happens. There is nothing wrong with being an uncle Fred as long your not being taken advantage of, and that will happen.

[FlipsidE]

The shoot I have lined up is for one of my absolute best friend's six week old daughter. This was something I volunteered to shoot, for free, way back when I first started to learn photography. And, while I may do some clean up work, I intend to probably just hand her a CD (preferrably offer a ZIPed or RARed download from my site) with all the shots on it and let her print them as she sees fit.

Since I will do no printing myself, the only money out of pocket for this shoot will be the money it takes to buy gasoline to drive to her place and drive back (probably a 10 minute drive)...that and the money for my time if you go by the "my time is money" saying.

Thing is, I could get some good experience from this and possibly add some photos to my portfolio. On top of that, I could make a good friend happy. I would make sure, though, to tell her that this is a one time thing and that I would not be doing this for free for her friends.

Am I missing the real point by doing this? Or are these types of things generally acceptable?

FlipsidE

[Vegas Poboy]

I have done that type of work in the past to build my portfolio & gain experience, just make sure you explain the limitations of doing this and it won't be repeated for others.

[IndyJeff]

Flipside I would be disappointed in you if you were doing anything but shooting your friends daughters party for free. Your playing the part of uncle Fred and I would hope that you do so every year that girl has a birthday.

I wouldn't go into this looking for or expecting to get anything out of it, not something for the portfolio or any experience. Just do it for the fun of it.

There is a time when each and every one of us is not looking to make a buck but, just a guy with a camera taking some pics for a friend. You have to know when that is and when you need to be charging for your work.

[FlipsidE]

Good advice Jeff. Thanks!

FlipsidE

[IndyJeff]

Ok here is a real life situation involving family and photography. My aunt & uncle will be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary June 4th. It is a small affair at their place on Kentucky Lake. Only their brothers and sisters and of course their 2 sons will be there. I am the only nephew who will be attending. They have asked for me to be the photographer. There was never any mention of money, except that they will be providing me with a motel room that weekend.
I will do this and not charge them a dime. I will also give them one 8x10 print. If anyone else wants prints or wants a portrait done, I will do it and post it online and they can buy it there. I will reduce the cost of their prints so I make virtually nothing off of them but, I am not spending anything more than gas to get there out of my pocket.
I won't lose money, I won't make money. My relatives are not rich but they can afford to pay for their own prints if they wish to have them. I will gain some portrait prints for my portfolio and make some people very happy. That is a win win situation for everyone involved.
There are times when you do work pro bono...without the thought of making any money off it. Thing is you have to know when to do it free and when to charge.
Since they live 5 hours away, if they were to call and ask if I can come do this again for a family portrait for Christmas or something then the first words out of my mouth would be....What kind of money to do have budgeted for this project? I have several package deals which may suit your needs. Of course there will be a charge of $200 just to drive down there on top of the actual photo costs.
I can be had for free but, I won't be taken advantage of, even by family.

[primoz]

And once again I can only agree with Jeff. Sport photography (or photography in general) is not my main business and my main income, so I could actually fall into group of people, who are best "candidates" for "I work for free or for credit only". And to be honest most of those "work for credit only" guys come from other areas. Before it wasn't really that much of stuff like this, since with film noone bothered to do much. Afterall it wasn't really cheap to shoot 5 or 10 films at one race, not to mention normal people didn't have chance to get them developed and scanned or sent in 10 or 20 mins after race. But with digital everyone can be photographer and since it doesn't cost anything (yeah dream on... camera, lenses, computer, driving expenses etc. are paid by who??? ) everyone can send photos to newspapers for free. Afterall it's cool to brag around "Look my photo was printed in this and this newspaper". Right? And when you get salary from something else, then you don't need to worry how you will by bread and milk on end of day, even if you gave your photos away for free. And to be honest most of photos like that are so crapy they will never bring anyone some bigger money so they won't be feeling stupid for giving those photos for free.
But personally I don't do stuff like this because of of reasons, which others should consider too. First I need to buy my equipment (unless if I get it from agency I work for part time). And this thing is not really cheap. Second it doesn't feel fair to take someones bread because, if I work for free, he or she will be without job for sure no matter how crapy my photos would be. Since I work for same money as they do, I don't have any bad concious for "taking their money". For same money they don't hire me because I would be cheaper. And third... if some newspaper, magazine, or any other client will earn money with that photo, then I'm entitled to get my share too... no matter if this is not my full time job. Why noone of those "yeah but we don't have budget for photos" doesn't ask print house to print their newspaper for free? Because it's normal everyone pay for such service. Just as n my mind it's normal to pay for photos too... afterall it's all same thing, just different perspective.

[KennyG]

I know one couple who have spent getting on for $50,000 between them for camera gear - MK-II's, 300 and 600 lenses, etc. They tread all over working photogs territory and give away their work for free. Their work isn't that good (good gear - no talent), but when it is free you can imagine everyone wants it.

One danger about giving work away for free is you could be taking bread out of the mouth of people who need to earn their living from it. If you want to do something for free, just be aware of the impact on other photographers, if there is any. You could find yourself a pariah, just like those above.

[tbfoto]

Jeff, this thread has really hit home for me. Although I work part time as a sports photographer for a local studio I have found myself wanting to get out and shoot even more. When I'm all caught up with my sports I find myself sitting at home wishing I was at a game somewhere. I've been thinking about contacting several newspapers about covering events for them and thought that I would be willing do it for almost nothing because quite frankly I really enjoy this line of work. It really is a tough spot to be in. In order to have something worthwhile to shoot you have to have access to the events. Not just anybody can walk into an arena and go to the floor and start shooting. You have to have permission to be there. In order to get that permission you have to be "working" for someone. Sure I love to get paid for my skills... and do, however there are times when you have to do a freebie or two to get other "paying" doors to open as well. I've done the free weddings and done the free family gatherings as well. I just love to shoot and sometimes it tough to find events worthwhile to shoot. You can only take so many shots of birds and flowers.


Tom

[IndyJeff]

Tom I am sure Kenny, VWPilot or RFM will back me up on this, if you contact an editor and ask if he needs coverage of a local event and ask what his pay rates are, he will take you more seriously than if you are willing to do it for free. You, more than likely, will not be the only phone call he gets that week offering free work.
Each racing season I get about 10 emails from people who have found my racing website. Usually they say they would be interested in working a race for me if I need help. Two things most of these emails have in common is they offer to do it for free and have a website for me to see an example of their work. At least 4 times last year I emailed back something like this......I am sorry but after looking at your website I have to be very frank and honest with you. I couldn't under any circumstances ask for a credential for you as what you have shown me as some of your best work I would consider as stuff I would have deleted. Keep practicing and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them.
I have gotten to the point of when I see, "I will work for free" I don't even go to thier site. I just send an email and say thanks but I don't need any help now.

I can't vouch for Kenny or Jim or VW but, when I cover an event and it is over I am sore, tired and aching all over. Last year after a football game I stopped by a friends house who lived near the game to visit with him. I came limping in like a 90 year old man. Sat down like I was about to break in half. He laughed and asked what the hell was wrong. I said it was like this after every game. He asked why I did it and I said because I love doing it, even with the aches and pains afterwards. I move, sqaut, kneel, stand, run from one end of the field to the other and trust me when your 47 years old and a guy runs a interception back for a TD and you get from one end of the field to the other in time to get set up to cover a 2 point conversion and get it from the linebackers view, your sore. It ain't all fun and games. When I get done shooting a game, be it softball, football wrestling or even hockey, I am hot, sweaty, sore and tired. It is work.

If you want to do it for free just to open doors, don't count on them ever paying you. My suggestion would be ask if you can cover a game as a stringer. If they use your shot you get paid, if they don't then they aren't out a single dime and all you have invested is the 3-4 hours you spent at the venue. Just remember, if your local paper gets used to having people work for free covering events, they come to expect that and you will never be able to get paid for shooting a game for them

[PhotosGuy]

This is great! I agree with it all & now, when the weekly question comes up, you can just point them here & save a lot of typing time. ;-)

Photographers Mark and Diane Wallace's blog on How Much Should I Charge? (http://blog.snapfactory.com/?p=710)

Talking budget with your clients (http://www.marketingmixblog.com/2011/08/talking-budget-with-your-clients.html)
Don't miss the "Read the entire blog post here:" link farther down in the text.

Lotsa' links:

And of course, the "Sticky"s at the top of this Business section.

"How much should I charge?"- for those wondering what to charge (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=853041)

GettyImages.com is a very successful stock photo company. After you join for free, you will be able to use their stock license price calculator for almost any type of use as a guideline for your own efforts.

Selling Photography Prints - Dan Heller (http://www.danheller.com/biz-prints)

FotoQuote - source of photo pricing information for photographers. (http://www.cradocfotosoftware.com/fotoQuote-Pro/index.html)
http://www.cradocfotosoftware.com/fotoQuote-Pro/

FotoQuote ($140): Editorial Photographers Price Estimator (http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/estimator/estimator.asp)

Stock Photo License pricing Calculator (http://photographersindex.com/price-adv-calc.htm)

Free pricing guides:
http://www.featurepics.com/News/photo-license-fees-calculator.aspx
http://www.stockphotopricecalculator.com/
http://photographersindex.com/price-adv-calc.htm

Not-free pricing guides:
http://www.cradocfotosoftware.com/
http://hindsightltd.com/products/PriceGuide.html

http://asmp.org/tutorials/licensing-guide.html

UK - Excel & .RTF download: NUJ Freelance Fees Guide: Photography: Day rate calculator (http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/phcalc.html)

NPPA Cost of Doing Business Calculator
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/cdb/cdbcalc.cfm

Selling price for commercial brochure photos ??? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=670851)

Youth sports photography "idea"? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=441736)

How to sell unsolicited photos to parents? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=474480)

Apartment Shoot comming up... (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=449834)

Deposit and refunds (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=491389)

Dealing With Difficult To Satisfy Clients (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2229202)

In an advertising bind! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5840984#post5840984)

Post #3 by amfoto1: Little League Photography...Need Info on Rules & Regs. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=532835)

I just have to ventilate my emotions about Favours. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=575285)

Cost of doing business breakdown - weddings
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4666706&postcount=38

[GerryDavid]

Another way of looking at this whoring of cheap stock compared to real stock agenciees would be:

The cheap car companies are taking business away from Ferrari and Mercedies Menz? Perhaps we should close down the cheaper car companies so they dont ruin the market for the luxery cars. :0)

Perhaps Mcdonalds is taking business away from The outback.

Perhaps holga is taking business away from mamiya.

All these more expensive places seem to be doomed. :0)

Theres a place for everything.

[IndyJeff]

Nice try Gerry but, the comparison is not valid.

I guess you may be one of istock's contributers. Enjoy your 20 cents and don't spend it all in one place.

[pyterps]

What a great thread.

Jeff......what approach should one take when approaching a local news paper? Do you call them and ask for a meeting to show them you work and set pricing? Just trying to get some ideas and may answer some questions from others.

Everyone please feel free to reply just asked Jeff because he had mentioned newspapers a few times.

[IndyJeff]

pyterps I have contacted newspapers via email, phone, on the sidelines of a game, even had them call me. I guess you could send out an email and direct them to your site or make a phone call and see what the editor might be looking for. Personal contact usually works best.

An editor usually won't have time to meet with you to review a portfoilio so a good website would be great for him to be able to look at it at his leisure. Of course if you get a face to face with him, bring along a portfolio would be a good idea. If he wanted to see it, you have it in hand.

[Vega$50]

After reading and re-reading this post all I can say is...it will change the way I currently do business. I will no longer whore my photos for pittance on sweatshop stock sites. Your points are valid and clear, and I find it hard to counter argue any one of them. Thanks for your insight.

[ilcounican]

WOW! Great thread! I won't deny that I've been among the "byline/photo credit" crew. The only difference is that I only gave my images to a grassroots community newspaper with which i have a very good relationship. No stock agencies or mainstreamers looking for good shots for next to nothing. Concerning shooting at family/work gatherings, that's one area where I won't budge; if people want images, they may purchase a photo CD from the company. I DO run a business and I depend on that income to live!

I have been seen as the convenient "in-house" photographer at both of my jobs, and I have had to make it clear to my boss and co-workers that photography is part of my livelihood. I don't whore out my services just because you think you can save money on someone in the company who has a certain expertise that is NOT part of his job/description. My boss has been understanding of this, but it takes a little more than that to convince the co-workers. Everybody wants a freebie.

My advice is very much aligned to the original post: don't go for the credit because a number of times people have picked up and thrown out the community paper and would tell me about an article they read in it... "and the pictures were pretty nice." They never even read the photo credit. And at this point it's not even a novelty to me, so none of it goes into the portfolio. You want to make money for the investment you've made in equipment, training, school, etc... so sell your WORK, not yourself!

[GerryDavid]

Nice try Gerry but, the comparison is not valid.

I guess you may be one of istock's contributers. Enjoy your 20 cents and don't spend it all in one place.

Thanks, I will. And its $0.20 to $0.60 each, and considering ive made over $50us on mostly 4 images, thats not to bad. And considering I dont have a dslr yet, just a 3mp p&s digital my pictures wont be considered by a real stock site due to noise and size.

I just think theres a place for everything. Lots of portrait photographers complain about walmart studios, that its costing them business. Some families cant afford to spend $$$ on a real studio, so its not like you would see thier money anywase. And then the ones that can afford your rates will probably go to you to get custom portrait pictures instead of a general portrait pose. If you are skilled and creative, you shouldnt have anything to worry about, assuming your market can support you. To me stock is in the same catagory.

[froman98]

Maybe I have the "it's half empty not half full" mentality but I don't look at any job as a freebie. Although it may be free for the client, it's certainly not free for you (us) the photographer. I don't mean to reiterate anything everyone else has mentioned but there is absolutely NOTHING for free. Whether you're doing a friends birthday party or an uncle's sisters friends neighbors motherinlaws cousin's wedding, you still have to pay for gas, time spent, food/refreshments (unless otherwise provided), time spent for sorting and processing the photos and money and time spent on getting them printed or put onto media to 'give' out. On top of that, all of the freebies (like the many examples mentioned) will result in others wanting freebies and will take away from a photographer who relies on these jobs to feed himself and possibly his family. Not only do freebie photographers eat away at the market but the word of mouth goes around and soon, Suzie told Jody about her free photographer and then Jody won't settle for the going rate. She wants to find someone who will grossly undercut the competition.

What's sad is that quite a few people actually look at the price before quality. In my opinion, I would rather pay half a months salary to get good shoots of my wedding to have good quality photographs that I wouldn't be ashamed to pass down from generation rather than have a "Professional" wedding photographer shoot a wedding with his Polaroid i-zone (Okay, that was a bit of an exaggeration, but you get what I'm saying).

Damn the undercutters.

I'm trying to pursue my love for photography as a career. I've learned invaluable things from everyone on this forum and hope to one day be one of those guys directly affected by undercutters. ;)

[IndyJeff]

Thanks, I will. And its $0.20 to $0.60 each, and considering ive made over $50us on mostly 4 images, thats not to bad. And considering I dont have a dslr yet, just a 3mp p&s digital my pictures wont be considered by a real stock site due to noise and size.




Hmmm so what your saying is the clients using the El Cheapo stock companies get what they pay for. Okkee Dookee bub.


See folks here we have a perfect example of someone justifying using a service that pays .20-.60 cents per download. He has made over $50 from 4 images. Which probably means that enough people have downloaded the images that if he sold them at half the going rate, due to noise and size, he would still be looking at well over $1000 in sales. Thanks Gerry for posting that info, and I do mean that. It is a prime example of what I have been saying on here for well over a year. Don't sell yourself short.

[RichardtheSane]

Gerry, do you know where your images have been used?

[primoz]

For $12/image I don't sell my photos not even for one time use in smallest newspaper around here (and when you count Slovenia has 2million people you can imagine circulation of smallest local paper). And I don't even think on any other use for this amount of money. But well... anyone does whatever he wants... just in this case it goes on account of other people who are actually living from photography. Or any other profession, since this doesn't happen just in photography.

[IndyJeff]

For $12/image I don't sell my photos not even for one time use in smallest newspaper around here (and when you count Slovenia has 2million people you can imagine circulation of smallest local paper). And I don't even think on any other use for this amount of money. But well... anyone does whatever he wants... just in this case it goes on account of other people who are actually living from photography. Or any other profession, since this doesn't happen just in photography.


LOL Primoz I just got a check in the mail today from a small paper and it is just one more reason why you should not assume what you will be paid. Last time I recieved $35 for a football shot they wanted. This time I called them and had a shot of a state wrestling champ. My check for that shot was get this.....$7.00

I can guarantee next time they call me asking for a shot the price will be much higher than the $35 they paid last fall. Oh and if I get a shot I think they may be interested in, I will just keep it to myself. Homey don't play dat.

This one was on me for not doing what I should have done but, they won't get over on me again.

[GerryDavid]

Well, if it wasnt for the stock site, I wouldnt even have that $50. How else would I have made the money? Due to the size/noise limitations it wouldnt have been sold elsewhere.

Nope, got no idea where the images were used. I posted my email address for people to contact me, but no one has done it yet. Apperantly lots of people go there to download pictures for wallpaper/screensaver, or alot did before the price hike. Maybe some of the downloaders were just doing it for that.

Which probably means that enough people have downloaded the images that if he sold them at half the going rate, due to noise and size, he would still be looking at well over $1000 in sales.

I could have possibly made more selling them myself, but since im just one person out of millions of photographers, no one would have known to contact me for one of these 4 pictures, therefor I wouldnt have made 1 sale. And for the increased price, I wouldnt have sold each image as many times even if people did know to contact me. So instead of 100 people downloading the one picture for $1.50 or what ever they pay, I would have sold it alot less of times.

So whats better? Selling some photos for fun hundreds of times for chump change and actually have some money to put back in photography, or not selling a single image so the big shots wouldnt whine and not get a dime for those images? thier not images I would take to a real stock site. When I think im ready to contact a real stock site, I will have all new pictures that istock has never seen, much better resolution, etc. In the mean time im learning how the stock sites work and what sells and what doesnt. Think of istock as a learning curve.

I dont believe istock has much effect on the real stock sites. Those with the budget that can afford the quality will go to th real sites. Those with out the budget wouldnt go to the real stock site anywase cuz they just cant afford thier rates.

Ive heard of pro's putting thier good pics on real stock sites, and thier 2nd on istock that they would normally delete, and make some change from it.

I guess everyone has thier own openion on this.

Has corbis or any of the real stock sites released any newsletters complaining about istock taking money away from them?

[Claire]

Indy,
Great sticky with excellent advice. :) Listening and hopefully learning.

[blundar]

KennyG,

Where do we sell our pictures so that we can make that magical $150,000 from 1 picture?

How do we market these pictures and to who?

If we all knew that, we probably would not be posting on RF Stock Houses for such low fees.

[GerryDavid]

One site I go to, one person runs a stock site, not one of those cheap ones I believe. The average income on her site is $1500 a month for 5000 image database, thats 30 cents an image average. Of course they dont sell every image every month, or they would be making a fortune.

I wonder what the stats are for the other stock sites like corbis.

[Digital Prophet]

Wow. This is a great thread that presents alot of good points and ideas. And even though it took me a while (I read slow, what can I say?) I finally made it all the way through it.

First of all I want to say that IndyJeff has a good point that is echoed throughout the photographic community. And there are many valid supporting issues that prop up the argument of classic business model of stock photography versus the discount business model that is becoming more and more active.

But, and there always is a but, there is something that I want to point out. Now first of all I am going to say out right that this is all just opinion and point of view oriented. So take it for what it is worth.

There have been many many articles and threads that I have read and conversations that I have both participated in and listened in on that give good advice. This is normally (a coversational average, no statitistic added here) a more experienced and/or professional shooter speaking, typing or telekenetically coveying information to a beginner/novice photographer. And it is usually, angain an average, some damn good advice. As is the case here.

And that all seems well and fine. Beginners and novices and otherwise budding photographers should always be interested in benefitting from the wisdom of those that have come before us. However, who is the advice good for? You see I think that is the factoid that gets overlooked all too often.

By that question what I am posing is a situation where you have a man on a mountain discussing the boiling of water to a man on a boat. Now before you think I have lost my mind, read on. The man on the mountain (the pro) tells the man on the mountain that in order to boil water he must wait and achieve a temperature of "X". But the man on the boat has already been boiling water, and he does it at a temperature of "Y". Does that mean that either man is wrong? Well no, they are both boiling water. So why is one boiling water at "X" and another at "Y"? The answer is really very simple, the man on the mountain is at a higher elevation, thus lowering (Or is it raising? I forget) the temperature at which water boils. The man on the boat is at sea level, thus is boiling water at a different temperature.

So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I will tell you. Sometimes the good advice that is given is absolutely correct and proper. For the professional giving the advice. But the situation of a experience/pro shooter that has many sales, publishings and clients under his belt is different than that of a beginning/novice photographer that is just starting out. Can a well established photographer haggle with a photobuyer for rights and price with greater flexibity and confidence than a novice with a short history and a fledgling portfolio? Well of course he can. But on the other end of the stick, can that same pro sell his work for less than his going rate (which he has spent years proving he can ear and deserve) or afford to take the hits that a beginner who doesn't have a studio and/or staff to pay? Of course he can't.

That is just the beginning of illustrating the differences in the situations between beginners and pros. And since there is just a vast difference, it is hard to think or say that one business practice (whether it is to hold out and wait to sell stock to buyers through more traditional methods for more traditional (and higher pay) than to start selling as a beginner for a lower commission to a discount broker like IStock) is right for EVERY photographer. And that is just discussing photographers as a breed, not disecting each market to find the true nature of the beast and how it operates. Because I think it is safe to say that the way a photojournalist is going to do business is going to be more than a tad different from the way a fashion photographer does business.

So if we accept that markets give birth to different business practices then why is it so hard to recall that one's place in thier career does the same. Sure, it would be ideal if EVERY photographer waited until they had a image bank full of 50, 500, 3,000 or 10,000 top quality, stylish images that are going to be acceptable to a traditional agent that can move these images for a higher and more traditional rate. But for some people on the end of the beginner can not or choose not to do that.

Why? Well there are practical reasons. Or I should say there CAN be practical reasons. And whether that is the quality bar is too high, they are developing thier style and want to explore what DOES sell or is just a simple matter of needing capital to upgrade equipment to improve quality and possibly expand thier style these are all valid reasons. Advice, even the best advice, given to a novice that is beyond his practical reach (in this case for the reasons listed above) isn't usefull advice.

I have often heard pros telling beginners to NEVER EVER NEVER EVER do wok for hire. And sure it isn't ideal. But for a real beginner it might be the "in" they need. The boost that gets thier career off ther ground. On the converse I heard novices saying that some pros could move HUGE volumes of stock on discount sites. But why would a pro when he has a established style, rate and clientel. That is just foolishness.

Now, if you have stayed with me this long hang in there for the Chapter 21. I do not advocate a shooter selling/giving away his work as a career path. No. Never. What is good for you as a novice is not going to be what is best for you as an established pro. When you reach the point that your portfolio is mature, your style is established (and you are confident it CAN sell) and you have made some headway into the community of photobuyers it is time to move on. It is time to stop offering stock to IStock. It is time to say "I am a pro, that is my novice work." And begin to offer your services in a more traditional manner that isn't just going to help you make a real career out of photography, but also not be a detriment to the world of photography as a whole.

So the next time you are giving, taking or overhearing good advice don't just think "Is this good advice." Ask if it is good advice for the person is getting it or the person giving it or both?

- Digital Prophet -

[PhotosGuy]

Good point! I think we all try to tailor our advice to the percieved level of the person who asked the question, and the beauty of the forum is that we all have a slightly different perception so the advice covers a wide gamut & someone will hit the "correct-for-that-person" answer on the head.
I would hope that "Is this good advice."... "for the person is getting it" is a question that everyone considers when they see replies.
And, I'd like to point out that there's a lot of truth to be found in the old joke that starts out, "Would you go to bed with me for $1,000,000?"

[blundar]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to where can I sell my pictures for $150,000.00! =)

It's easy to say I know someone who does this and does that and makes a ton of money. ...and you should never sell your pictures to such a cheap stock photo place.

Show me the money! Where do I get this? If I knew where I can make money like that, I would gladly stop uploading my photos to cheap stock agencies.

[robertwgross]

I had one image earn me over $3,000. You would be amazed how many calls/mails I received wanting it for free. Most were very offended when I refused.

They weren't really offended. They just wanted to sound offended. They were just trying to negotiate a sweet deal for themselves. If they really were offended, then they are stupid or naive.

I get that all the time.

One casual acquaintence recently contacted me about shooting her wedding. I spelled out different categories of wedding photography and gave costs for each category, so that she could think about it. Her response was that she was hoping that I would do it for her "as a friend" for free.

Then I told her I was busy that day.

---Bob Gross---

[GerryDavid]

Robert, what does your friend do for a living? Perhaps you could barter your services and not hurt the friendship. :0)

If a friend was close enough, I may do it for at cost, or a bit above cost, not free. It just costs to much to do a wedding if just dont give untouched pictures on a cd.

[IndyJeff]

DP I see your point of view and I understand where your coming from. And to a certain extent I see Gerry's point. (Ok Gerry get up off the floor after reading that)

There will always be places/photographers which offer a discounted product. Everyone has his price and some have no price. What each of us needs to do is realize that each and every image you capture has a value. A shot of a duck on a pond with a turtle hanging off his foot catching his lunch has a certain value. An athlete at the peak of action in his given sport has another value. A crash at an auto race also has a value.

The trick is to determine which has the greatest value. National Geographic may pay $1000 for the shot of the duck and wouldn't even be interested in looking at the sports shots. Vice-a-versa, Sports Illustrated wouldn't be interested in the duck shot but would pay handsomely for the sports shots.
Now if I had the duck/turtle shot (which I actually do) and Sports Illustrated offered me $50 for use in their magazine I would most likely take it. If it was NG calling, I would know that image has a greater value to them and negotiate a higher fee.


Ok, Gerry maybe your istock isn't so bad but, you and each one of us has to realize when it is good business to sell a shot for 20 cents and when to hold out for $200. My problem with places like istock is what if your shot is used in a way that should have paid you $200 and all you got was 20 cents? Now a guy wanting to use a sunset shot you took for a background on his PC or webpage isn't going to pay you $200 but, he may buy 4 or 5 shots from you at a couple a bucks each. Is there harm by that? I would have to change my point of view and say probably not but, there comes a time when the guy posting those images must say to himself, "Hey I sold $100 worth of stuff at 20 cents a shot this last month. Should I be selling these for a higher price?" Of course he should. Will he sell the same volume of images? No, absolutely not but, he will in all likelyhood make more money and sell less volume.
High end users, magazines and advertising agencies, are not likely to search istock for an image but, what if they did? Instaead of $15,000 you got 20 cents!!!! Therein lies the problem with the discount stock places, you have no say so in use of an image. If you have a shot on istock and it is of a girl with a balloon licking an ice cream cone and it is sold and used in an ad, guess what? If her parents, or anyone who knows her, sees the ad chances are a lawsuit is about to be filed. Guess what? Yep, you too will be named in that lawsuit and damges could be in the millions to the agency and hundreds of thousand to you. Then the agency turns around and sues you for providing and image to istock and for selling them an image which is not released.
If you can put FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY on an image and sell it thru istock, have at it.

[autograff]

IndyJeff,
Very well said!!! It's a great thread and it helps you to stop and think for a second. Which is good thing to do
Thanks again!

[DocFrankenstein]

I have some shots which I didn't put on istock. I'm holding them out... how do I sell them for 100+ dollars?

What steps do I need to take?
Who do I contact?
Or do I just sit on my a$$ and wait?

[GerryDavid]

Depends, can you blackmail with them? Hehe, jk.

[IndyJeff]

I have some shots which I didn't put on istock. I'm holding them out... how do I sell them for 100+ dollars?




First you have to market yourself. Unlike istock, there is no just sitting back and waiting for the $20 checks to come rolling in each month. You have to do some work to sell your images.

What steps do I need to take?
Determine what you want to do with said images. Do you want to sell them for editorial uses, calendars, advertising use or as printed art?

Who do I contact?
After you determine what uses the image will be used for, look within that market for someone who will have a need for that particular image. Find ways to contact them or get your work to their attention.


Or do I just sit on my a$$ and wait?
Well you can do that, and I imagine that up to now that is what you have done. How many sales did you have last month? Let that be your gauge on how much sitting or how much selling you need to do.

Selling for the higher dollar amounts is work, hard work. You spend lots of time on the phone and writing letters making contact. Nobody knows who you are and if you don't tell them about you, they will never know about you or any of your images. The guys who work at getting their names known are the ones who make the bucks. Once your known, people will contact you and then you can sit back on your a$$ and wait.
Of course when you do get to be known by a buyer or two then you will still have to work to get more images for them to choose from but, that can be more fun than work.

So you see Doc, like anything else in life it all depends on how much effort YOU put into it.


istock = $20 a month with very little effort.

proper marketing = $40,000 a year with lots of effort and hard work.

It's up to you to choose which path you take.

[DocFrankenstein]

Thank you for the reply jeff.

My first problem is that I don't know myself what it is what I want to do.

No portfolio. I do have an image collection though. ;) About third of which, are tests of lenses/equipment. Then there are family photos - no demand.

Some zoo shots with 70-200. A tiger... A lizard... some sunsets... my friends in freaky poses with no model releases...
I like one picture:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12582902.html

Determine what you want to do with said images. Do you want to sell them for editorial uses, calendars, advertising use or as printed art?
Don't know what editorial uses are. :)
Can't really imagine getting in the market for calendars and advertising.

Printed art seems more reasonable. 300$ per picture... maybe someone will buy it? :p If I sell one per year, I'm still getting more from it than from istock... plus I keep the copyrights. (then I'll be rich ;))

All I need is a website... and the "fine art". :)

I'll check out some options.

[primoz]

I just don't get this idea with "stock agencies for $20/year" and "I work for credit" things. If someone goes to this because he or she needs money, then credit only is not really way to go. So as some "stock" agency for $0.1/picture is not. If someone doesn't need money, then why the hell to even send photos to stock agencies? I can even somehow understand credit only thing in this case... people just have bigger ego if they have their photos published. Yeah like anyone will know you because of that.
As I said few days ago... I do have some other job and photography is not main income. I don't do photography because I would need money, even though it doesn't hurt to earn some money on side to pay for those expensive cameras and lenses. But even if I don't need money I don't work for free. It's just not fair to those who have photography as their main job. As I said before, when someone hires me, he definitely doesn't hire me because I would be cheaper, so I don't have bad feeling about this.
And on end... I think people should take a look a bit about others too. If you have taken photo for your fun and joy then be happy with and keep it there. Show it to all your friends, put it to your web, and 1000 of galleries around web, but go away from cheapo stock agencies. Noone will get anything from that... except owner of that agency. Getting $5 for 1000 photos won't make you feel any better then getting just praise from your friends who would see your photo on your wall.

[IndyJeff]

Thank you for the reply jeff.

My first problem is that I don't know myself what it is what I want to do.
Well that is a problem that only you can solve. One day you will know.

No portfolio. I do have an image collection though. ;) About third of which, are tests of lenses/equipment. Then there are family photos - no demand.

A portfolio isn't made up of shots which are "portfiolo only shots". It is made up from shots from your collection. Mainly whatever you shoot the most will make up your portfolio because that is what you will be most experienced in and therefore be more likely to be able to get paid for shooting. I doubt anyone would pay me for shooting their wedding but, they would damn sure pay me for doing a shoot of their racecar or kid playing sports.

Some zoo shots with 70-200. A tiger... A lizard... some sunsets... my friends in freaky poses with no model releases...
I like one picture:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12582902.html


Don't know what editorial uses are. :)
Can't really imagine getting in the market for calendars and advertising.

Printed art seems more reasonable. 300$ per picture... maybe someone will buy it? :p If I sell one per year, I'm still getting more from it than from istock... plus I keep the copyrights. (then I'll be rich ;))

All I need is a website... and the "fine art". :)

I'll check out some options.

The zoo shots may be some for your portfoilo, if you like shooting animals maybe you will become DocFrankestein....pet photographer LOL.

Editorial uses are anything that is used in a magazine or newspaper etc for newsworthy use.
Calendars and advertising is very competitive and hard to break into but, if you meet someone who has a connection in either of those industries, you have your foot in the door. Which is one foot more than most guys wanting to do that have.

Trust me if you sell one image for $300, that will not be enough. You will so much enjoy going to the bank with a check for $300 made out to DocFrankenstein it won't be enough. You will hunt for ways to repeat that experience, over and over each and every week.

[vinnyveez]

slightly off the path here but my cousin asked me to shoot for her at her wedding a while back.

2 things to consider:
1. I really didnt get to enjoy the receptiona ta ll. it was work, and alot of worrying. I wnated to amke sure i got a bunch of good shots, so it was quite stressful.
2. She bought the film for me and when i was done the shoot, i had a bag that i filled with the shot film which i handed her (this was back when i was shooting using only film). she took care of everything else.

All in all, since she was family i had no problem "working" for free. But just understand that this is work and you wont be able to enjoy the wedding like everyone else. Also, unless you are in a situation where you can afford to pay for developing the film, let that be known up front. hopefully they wont expect you to flip the bill. Also, maybe you could make it their wedding present. If your family doesnt understand this, then maybe you need to start looking for a new family. lol

[Kadath]

One danger about giving work away for free is you could be taking bread out of the mouth of people who need to earn their living from it.

Boy, this is an issue which is gonna get me into a lot of trouble, but at this point I'm going to have to say 'So what'. Essentially in this situation the professional is to the amateur or newby as to what the internet is to brick and mortar shops or to what Gnu/Linux/FOSS is to Microsoft. When did propping up the establishment become the problem of anyone besides the establishment???

Ever bought a camera/accessory off amazon? You contributed to the decline of the mom and pop camera stores that were plentiful 20 years ago but are going or gone today! Do you mourn for them or make others feel guilty for getting what they want at the best price?

Ever used The Gimp or other open source software? You took money out of Bill Gates and Adobe's grimy paws!

I'm only being half serious with the above, but I think perhaps the situation you are seeing is simply evolution catching up with you. You can either adapt or be run over by it.

How do you fight the internet? Embrace it! Seems to work for B&H and itunes, and those who arent embracing it (the MPAA for example) are either buried under or stressing so hard that its hardly got to be fun any more.

What do you do when your competition is free or cheap? Well, buy a bottle of water lately? Of course millions of people have. Either you offer a BETTER product that the other guys cant provide or move your value to SERVICE and not PRODUCT. It's what IBM is doing to embrace FOSS. Computers are now commodities. The value is in the services, consulting and minimally, the hardware that goes along with it.

We've all seen how the 'guilt trip' angle doesnt work for the RIAA or the MPAA, dont get too attached to it in your ecosystem. I'm sorry if this is blunt, hell I've got a mortgage and family too! But its better to think smart about this than to be indebted to the past and become a dinosaur.

Sam

[elkootcho]

I find myself on the fence with this issue (mainly with the low cost sites like istockphoto) since my full time profession is as a graphic designer. Photography is a hobby for me but ultimately I have hope of building up a decent stock portfolio that will hopefully bring in a bit o' cash on a fairly regular basis.

Now as a designer, I LOVE the notion of istockphoto and similar sites as I can buy a couple of decent shots for my less discriminating clients (or those simply without deep pockets) for literally pennies. Boosts my bottom line nicely.

As a photographer with a building portfolio I HATE those sites because obviously it drags down stock prices and makes it tough to compete within certain markets. Needless to say, I can't have it both ways but it makes it tough to decide which side to root for.

[Monito]

I believe in Free Markets and Free Enterprise, with necessary, but minimized regulation. In the case of photography markets, very little regulation is needed if any. No, I am not a Republican, please.

I do not want to deny people selling their photos for cheap. Yes, they are a nuisance and a bother. Appealing to their compassion for pro photographers does not work well. Appealing to their greed is much more effective. There are tiers of photo outlets. If a photographer on iStock is half decent, direct them to the next tier up where they can make more money, etc. If you (we, they) are successful enough, they will soon be competing directly with you in your pro space at your pro prices!

If somebody has $50,000 worth of camera equipment and is essentially or actually giving away photos for free, appeal to their greed. If they have that much equipment they are either greedy for equipment or greedy in other areas of life that have made the money to get that equipment. Either way, they have greed in their life that can be put into gear. Get one of their photos for free, thank them, and then laugh at them and tell them they just lost $1000. They have given away a photo with no restrictions on the rights and the new owner can sell it for good money elsewhere.

If Uncle Bob wants to do a wedding or two for $100, let him. A couple of unhappy brides out there will be powerful evidence for a dozen or more brides-to-be to get proper photographers.

It all balances out in the long run. This is a time of change and upheavel in the business, but it will not last. Raging against iStock and amateurs won't help your sales and is likely to hurt your coronary arteries.

There is a lot more to professional photography than a well composed, well exposed picture. At its most fundamental level, amateurs practice until they get it right, but professionals study and practice until they never (or hardly ever) get it wrong.

I am not writing hypothetically about the photographer market. I am about to test my convictions by going professional. I do not have much equipment, but I will not be entering at the bottom of the barrel. I will need some luck, but believe that good luck comes from good planning and hard work. I don't mind competition because even though I know many of my limitations I have confidence in my determination and my abilities.

[DocFrankenstein]

I am don't know my stance on this topic.

The capitalist reality is that istock and similar sites are dominating, but only within a certain market niche. Generic, maybe "concept" images.

Are portrait photographers theatened by istock? wedding? sport? bird photographers?

istock is a threat to you, only if the images you produce are the same as were done before you many times. And we know how much those "photographs" cost.

[sixshot]

Interesting thread. Thought provoking opinions. Nice ideas.

So can someone say which online stock agencies are good. I am in the process of putting a portfolio together and having never sold, tried to sell or given a picture away for free, it is time to think of where to sell my photos. I have looked at Corbis and Photoega.....are these sites good. Has anyone used them? I am against sites such as istock and want to be careful in choosing the best stcok site to put my collection on.

So, any reccommendations?

[IndyJeff]

sixshot, stay away from anything that is royalty free. That alone usually means little or no cash.

Do a google search for stock photography and that should keep you busy looking thur sites. Look for something like indexstock (http://www.indexstock.com/content/help/stockphotography.asp) and look for some wording like,"license stock photos". That is where you will find a place to sell your images based upon the use, the price will be according to industry standards.

[elkootcho]

The capitalist reality is that istock and similar sites are dominating, but only within a certain market niche.

This is really no different than Photodisc, Rubberball, Digital Vision and the like. 100 images for $300. Do any of the pros here sell "royalty free" or is everyone strictly "rights managed"?

[TheBlindOne]

Ok, I might be a little more militaristic about this but...
If you are an amature (someone who does not need to make a living taking pictures or for whom photography is not YOUR LIFES VOCATION) or a PRO, please DO NOT give away your work, sell your copyrights for nothing, work for byline credit, or in any other way act in a way that may undercut other photogs. I know it's nice to see your name in print and the experiance is cool but, you are take bread out of my mouth and KILLING an industry. I am a photojournalism student, by the time I graduate I will have more than $40,000 in student debt and a job that will at most pay me $25,000 a year. I am not just directing this at that people that give papers their pics for free. I am directing this at AP (and others) stringers (rights grabbing cotracts), "I'll work to improve my portfolio" people (please charge something even if it is only $20, it gets people usede to the idea that they need to pay for this skill), and the I'm not that good so I'll just give it away (for gods sake keep it to yourself).
The average wage of a photojournalist hasn't moved in more than a decade not even to compensate for the increase in the cost of living. It has done this because there are people out there that dont care about the comunity or the pros in it. All they care about is making a little money and this means that you have to take less than your worth as a pro to do just the same. and yes I yell at my friends who string for the AP while in college for some money because they are shooting them selves in the foot. can you imagine what would happen if everyone that took pictures for the AP demanded a fair deal and the didn't have an infinate supply of cheep labor to replace them with. as pros (or future pros :) ) we should be up in arms when we hear about non-pros shooting events, they should be run out of the place double time. remember that everytime someone with a day job decides to call themselves a photographer because they have a canon drebel and the 75-300 is lens they are cheapening the thousands of dollars and millions of manhours you have spent going to school and then paying your dues to perfect your craft.
to the amatures that read this. PLEASE, take pictures for your own (and your family and friends) enjoyment, don't take bread out of my mouth by undercutting me selling to istock or working for a byline. if you want to do pro work, CHARGE for it and demand that you keep the copyright. Why do you think that the every year the pullitzer is given to "AP staff photographer *****", it's because the AP not the photog has the copyright. If you really want to be a photojournalist, or a wedding photog, or anyother kind of photog, go get some training and do it. If it's just a pass time join the the local photo club or start one if there isn't one and don't ruin it for those of us that need to make a living doing this.
I know that this is harsh but these are the facts as I see em'. Feel free to lambast me now as I have said all I wanted to. just remember that only 25-30 years ago to be a photographer meant that you had envested time and money in training to learn how to shoot, process, print, report, understand the ethics envolved, etc. now anyone with a DREBEL is a photographer.

Riaz

best quote:
"I want to follow in all but the last of Robert Capa's foot steps."
my friend Alex talking about being a war photographer

[elkootcho]

Well, although your plea was quite impassioned I think that it will mostly fall on deaf ears. With the mass availablity of high-pixel, low-cost digital cameras the wages that you hope to be paid WILL continue to drop. It's no different than every other industry.

I'm a graphic designer with about 12 years of experience. As the internet exploded and the availablity of pirated programs grew my industry took a big hit. Ever do a search on the internet for "logo design"? There are people out there that are willing to design logos for $20. Are these trained, experienced designers? Probably not. Does that hurt my pocket book? Yep. Can I do anything to stop it? Not much.

The fact is that as technology gets cheaper the number of "professionals" grows. How do I combat this? Well, as a print designer I take advantage of sites like istockphoto.com to buy images for $3. I also own a very large stock of royalty-free images from photodisc, rubberball, etc. This enables me to increase my profits because not every client I get has deep enough pockets to buy their images from sites like gettyimages. The cheapo sites allow me to stay competative in a world of cheapo clients and design hobbyists that have brought my rates down.

It would be nice if I was able to obtain nothing but high-end clients with a price-is-no-object attitude but that's simply not the case. When I do manage to get the huge corporate client that's when I pay the bucks to buy rights-managed images because SOME clients demand it and have the budget to pay for it; but not all do.

Every industry changes and you need to be able to change with it. Find a niche and exploit it while you can. But to ask others to change their behavior in order to put more money into YOUR pocket isn't going to work.

[IndyJeff]

Funny I should revisit this thread today. Over the weekend I did a double header high school baseball game. I had not shot either team before, the home team, also my alma mater, had played against the high school I cover on a regular basis a couple of weeks ago. I didn't get any shots of them, except the occasional slide into base where I was focused on the other team.

Saturday I had one parent from the visiting team come up while I was talking to a parent from the other team and one of the coaches. This guy introduces himself and starts asking about prices. When I quoted my prices he said I was ripping people off, they had been to a tourney last year with AAU and they had a guy who did the same thing. My prices were double what the other guy charged. The parent from the home team jumped into the conversation at this point, "Well his prices may be double but, they are worth every dime, even if they were triple!" I just about hugged this lady LOL. The coach agreed that the prices weren't outrageous by any means. Well this other guy started to walk away when the coach asked which number his kid was so I could make sure NOT to waste my time shooting him. LOL I almost hugged the coach.

About half way thru the first game another parent, a lady from the visiting team came up and introduced herself as the angry dad's wife. She said she was familiar with the online news site I shoot for and asked if I was indeed the guy who shot for them. I answered yes I was. She then asked me to be sure to get plenty of shots of her son as she had a job and would buy them herself.

So today I get an email and here it is.......

Dear Mr. Barrie,
I am Ron XXXXXXX I am the guy who told you that you were ripping people off in your pricing Saturday. I have been to your website and saw the pics you posted to that site. I still say there is a rip off involved here. The other guy was ripping us off not you. After seeing what my wife was getting all excited over I agree with her that your work is tremendous and worth the money. We did not order anything yet in hopes that you will be able to attend another game and order all at once. If that is not possible please let us know so we can place our order now. Once again I apologize.

I can't really tell you how satisfying that was for him to email me with that bit of info. Now I am sorry that I didn't get more of his kid.

Each of us has to decide what his price will be, whether it is editorial or selling to parents. I would hope that when you set your pricing you take into consideration what others in your area are charging. I am on the high end of midrange. I am not the most expensive but not far from it and way more expensive than the lowballers out there.
If I would have started shooting the high school football games last year for dirt cheap prices, I couldn't even think of charging more this year. Once you establish yourself as dirt cheap and you relaize your not even making minimum wage it is hard to raise the price and justify it. This spring I have covered their baseball team, girls tennis and still have yet to get to a girls softball game. Think of all the money I would be missing out on if I were dirt cheap.

Once you get used to 50 cents hamburgers it isn't easy to pay $1.00 for the same burger now is it?

[Belmondo]

That's a great story, Jeff. It should be mandatory reading for anyone who feels the need to cut prices to compete. Eventually the people who appreciate your hight standards do come along, and things inevitably work out.

[IndyJeff]

Belmondo as I explained to a guy last year, they are not paying as much for the print as the talent of being able to get the shot that makes that print desireable. Any mom can shoot from the stands with her $299 P & S but, can she get the action? I don't cut off heads, well not usually LOL.


Update, as I was typing this I got a phone call from the mom of one of the players, she wants 2 prints....20x30 poster size. She didn't bat an eye at the prices either.

[Kadath]

you are take bread out of my mouth

Brand me a communist but I have to admit that I remain unconvinced. I think I'm not alone.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/12/your_failed_business.html

Again, I'm not unsympathetic to people who are losing their livelyhoods, but the sooner people think about their strategy for dealing with this rather than lamenting the changes to the world around them, the better IMO.

Sam

[skade]

Now this has been some very interesting reading! Really gives one alot to think about!!

[IndyJeff]

Brand me a communist but I have to admit that I remain unconvinced. I think I'm not alone.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/12/your_failed_business.html

Again, I'm not unsympathetic to people who are losing their livelyhoods, but the sooner people think about their strategy for dealing with this rather than lamenting the changes to the world around them, the better IMO.

Sam


I fail to see the relevance of that link. To go out with the intentions of creating and selling an image knowingly taking money out of someone's livelyhood just doesn't make sense to me. I don't offer to work on someone's car just because I have a great set of tools. That is what mechanics are for.

Statements like the one quoted above are a prime example of why I no longer offer much advice on the internet, here or any other forums. There will come a day when one of the freebie shooters is offered a chance to shoot something and be paid for it. Good luck on finding out how much it is worth. Go spend a day shooting and processing all for a $250 paycheck. While the client certainly will appreciate it, knowing that you worked that hard for that money that should have been 10 times that much, may change your mind about shooting for free. I can only hope that someone tells you, "Man that is a good gig, I did one like it last month. Paid me $2500." I would love to see the look on the freebies face when he realizes he could have had a couple of nice new lenses, or studio lights instead of some off brand lens.


If you can sell an image, why not try getting an industry standard rate for it? Or could it be that when you ask for industry standard rates, the client is no longer interested. In that case, they are using your work not because it is a great image but, they are buying it because of the price. Personally, I would rather have someone use my images because they are good, not because the price is a bargin for them.

[Curtis N]

1900 - The first of the famous Kodak Brownie Cameras was introduced. It sold for $1 and used film that sold for 15 cents a roll. For the first time, the hobby of photography was within the financial reach of virtually everyone.

A few weeks later - Amateur photographers started giving away pictures.

A day after that - Professional photographers started whining about how amateurs are "taking food from my poor baby's mouth."

This is a really, really old discussion.

[IndyJeff]

1900 - The first of the famous Kodak Brownie Cameras was introduced. It sold for $1 and used film that sold for 15 cents a roll. For the first time, the hobby of photography was within the financial reach of virtually everyone.

A few weeks later - Amateur photographers started giving away pictures.

A day after that - Professional photographers started whining about how amateurs are "taking food from my poor baby's mouth."

This is a really, really old discussion.

Thanks for the history lesson jr.


You know I have no problem with anyone giving away pictures of family, friends, landmarks or whatever but, when they start coming into an arena where the images are made for the purpose of selling and start giving them away, then I have a problem with that.

In some instances, amateurs giving away their work are trying to break into the business and that is not the way to do it.

[Curtis N]

...when they start coming into an arena where the images are made for the purpose of selling and start giving them away, then I have a problem with that.

Well, I didn't say you had to like it. You just have to live with it. The idea of amateurs undercutting the income of professionals is not new, it's not a recent phenomenon, it's not going to subside anytime soon, and it's certainly not exclusive to the photographic profession.

Amidst the whining, there's been a lot of widsom shared in this thread, and I don't want to minimize that. All amateurs should be wary of giving away their work to someone intent on profiting from it. Case in point, an ongoing announcement in my local newspaper:

"Attention Shutterbugs! Are you a photography buff who shows up with a camera everywhere you go? Sent us your photos of community events. Digital photos can be emailed to suckers@ournewspaper.com"

Translation: "We're too cheap to hire photographers or pay freelancers a fair price. We'd rather get free pics from any moron willing to send them to us." They want to profit from other people's charity.

I have been known to donate my services to my church and a few other not-for-profit organizations that I am involved with. But those who intend to use my photos for any commercial purpose will be asked to pay a fair price.

[IndyJeff]

Good for yuo Curtis, glad to see you have some sense about you. At least you know "photo by _______" doesn't buy much at the grocery these days.

[Curtis N]

Just a quick update on the newspaper asking for pictures.
I sent them an email asking what they normally pay for submitted photos. Here is their response:

"We normally only pay our freelance staff for photos, but we gladly accept contributions from the public as community involvement greatly enhances the newspaper."

At least they're honest. They want to profit from my generosity. No, thanks.

[sailpamc]

Have you ever heard of Rohn Engh at www.photosource.com (http://www.photosource.com/) ? He has a book called Sell and Resell Your Photos and another called sellphotos.com, also a variety of resources online. There you can learn about editorial stock photography, how to price your photos and how to get started selling to photobuyers. I think you will find this an invaluable resource.

[kenyc]

Belmondo as I explained to a guy last year, they are not paying as much for the print as the talent of being able to get the shot that makes that print desireable. Any mom can shoot from the stands with her $299 P & S but, can she get the action? I don't cut off heads, well not usually LOL.


Update, as I was typing this I got a phone call from the mom of one of the players, she wants 2 prints....20x30 poster size. She didn't bat an eye at the prices either.

And what WERE your prices??

KAC

[kenyc]

1900 - The first of the famous Kodak Brownie Cameras was introduced. It sold for $1 and used film that sold for 15 cents a roll. For the first time, the hobby of photography was within the financial reach of virtually everyone.

A few weeks later - Amateur photographers started giving away pictures.

A day after that - Professional photographers started whining about how amateurs are "taking food from my poor baby's mouth."

This is a really, really old discussion.

and not particularly different than what's happening in the software and support industries with all the work moving to cheap off-shore sweatshops.

KAC

[kenyc]

BTW, Great thread. As said above, lots to think about. I'm shooting lots of shots of my daughters softball team with the intent to learn how to do it and perhaps offer it as a service (or assignment) in the future. How do I find out what the "going rate" is for such services?

KAC

[tonytony]

Guys I must admit it: you open my eyes. This thread really illuminated me and made me remove all my images from istock. People must want me for the quality not for the cheap prices.

Indy I am completely sold to your theories and I am going to act consequently. Maybe I will never get to be a professional photographer, but I want to try at least with a professional attitude.

Thank you master.

Cheers,
Tony

[blinking8s]

sticky it

[DwightMcCann]

Whoa! Lots of emotion here, eh? Some suggesting that if I give my work away I am taking food off their table. Others suggesting that they enjoy the process so much they don't mind giving away their images. And others saying they'd love to get paid big bucks but don't know how. And I will add on here that I find the tone of those who feel we should all require big bucks for our work or keep it to ourselves a bit offensive ... almost to the point of being unAmerican ... in attacking anyone who disagrees with them. Guys, you aren't going to bring them back from the Dark Side by getting angry, making snide or sarcastic remarks, or otherwise belittling them because they aren't concerned about your welfare ... after all, you don't seem very concerned with theirs!

There is a lot of pressure on us little guys to work for free. My newspaper pays me the Princely sum of $40 for a shoot ... of which I have done four. Most people ask for pictures and never offer a penny, whether they are relatives, neighbors, or patrons at the bar. In fact, if you indicate that there is a fee, they are angered. Well, I don't like to have people angry at me ... so, if you can tell me how to get money from them without the chance that they will be angry that would be nice. If you have to lash out at me for being a wimp or not supportive of YOUR situation, then it is clear that you simply want me to subsidize your income by taking lumps ... not very friendly. And to be honest, I don't really care whether you can make a living or not, so if you want me to charge, you'd better work with me and not against me, OK?

With that said, let me say that I empathize with both sides. I am just now moving from the 'Photocredit/Pro Bono' group to the 'Here's my Price List' group. This is a very difficult move for us bleeding heart liberals! And I would argue that to gain the experience needed to demand reasonable fees it is necessary to do a bunch of former group type work. I still do royalty free work. I still give images away for free. How else will anyone know the quality of my work? How else will anyone even know I exist? On the other hand, I am slowly but surely making sure that people know I am a professional and require payment for work they ask me to do. That is currently where I make the distinction: if I shoot the images because I want the experience I am willing to give them away. If I am asked to shoot, I charge a reasonable fee. The trick, I think, is to get more and more shooting in that second category and that is the cusp of the issues in this thread. This is where we need the Pros to share a bit more deeply perhaps.

I saw the question asked repeatedly, "How do I make $150,000 from my image?" And I noticed that that question was ignored. What I read was, "Don't shoot for iStock (or whatever)!" but no good suggestions on the alternatives. In the old days we could apprentice to a master and learn the trade, both the technique and the business ends. So, if you're going to ask me to require payment for my work then you'd better tell me what I need to do, specifically, to be able to get it.

Putting on my other hat, of a professsional, I think getting to the point where people are willing to pay you the going rate is a lot of work, investment, time, energy, luck, connections, networking, taking lots of criticism well, suffering fools kindly, listening, watching, extending yourself, and learning where your strengths are. Rely on your supporters and ignore your detractors. Always be gracious, even to the most rank imbeciles ... don't worry, your supporters will take care of them for you. It is also very expensive to do top notch work.

Having said that, I think the best way to proceed is for those who want help learning how to make money from their photography ask specific questions. If those questions aren't answered then we will know that those asking that you don't give away your work simply want you to help them without any return ... they themselves want a free ride. If there are good answers, then everyone will benefit. But in the long run, those without talent will never rise and those with talent will find themselves buoyed to the top.

So I'll start! I shoot Live Performance images. I am good at it. But I have no idea how to find out what groups would be willing to pay me to shoot them. What should I do?

[BigRed450]

First of all I would like to say Great Thread folks, plenty of really good info here from both sides.

Here is my take on this. If a person seriously wants to be that well paid photographer he has to earn his way, take his lumps, pay his dues. Now, there are three ways that one can do this: (1) Go to school like any other trade and learn the ways of the wise and talented. (2) Apprentice with a Pro to learn those ways. OR (3) The long, hard, time consuming way of the Hobbiest, turned advanced amatuer, trying desperately to turn Pro. If you are truly serious and passionate about photography "go to School" and learn the ways. With talent and a good eye, this may be by far fastest way to get to Pro ranks.

Some people will never be exceptional Photographers like Dwight has said "those without talent will never rise and those with talent will find themselves buoyed to the top" . People can be taught the mechanics, and technical aspects of good photography, but they cannot be taught to see.

Now for Indy's point of view I must agree to a point. I totally agree that you must not let people take advantage of you. If you know your work is good you don't have to give it away to make a name for yourself the quality will sell. If your market area is slow and people won't pay then they just aren't deserving of your time and work. Those are not the people you want to waste your time on.
For instance, another sinario: 3 weeks ago I was asked by some good racing friends to come along on a trip (400 miles) to photograph their SuperBike races. They looked after me so there was no issue there and even as friends, appreciate the quality of work and never haggle my price, but of course they always get a little extra. I spent the first day, practice day, walking around, shooting from different areas, checking out the track and getting to know the officials and locals. These races are hosted by a non-profit club so sales come from the private racers themselves. This is where the situation gets a little different from Indy's. There are three resident photographers there, one shooting film and digital and giving out 4x6s for $1 a piece, one shooting digital and selling all race pics on disc for $10, and yet another shooting P&S film and selling a bundle of 4x6s for a couple dollars. Now, rather then the folks that can't afford my price complaining, and saying I'm trying to rip them off, they simply ooohhhed and aaahhhed and said " I wish I could afford a big one of those, they are awesome". That was a good feeling with no conflict, just appreciation. When all was said and done I got the better off customers who could afford it while the local photogs were there to satisfy those that couldn't. Did it work out? You bet, I am going back in July....
Take heart my friends there is enough room for all of us...

Thought you folks would like this. It is entertaining yet sort of sums things up as well.

Progression of a photographer

1. You start out with very little knowledge
2. You start doing research and realize it is much more difficult than you imagined.
3. You begin to pick up knowledge, the technical side of things.
4. You begin to use the technical knowledge and it works.
5. You start to feel as if you are mastering the technical
6. You begin to feel you know a LOT.
7. You start posting images that you are proud of.
8. You KNOW your images are better than much of what you see.
9. Family and friends start to oooo and aaaahhh at your images
10. Pro's don't seem to acknowledge you.
11. You think it's jealousy.
12. You reach a valley in your photography. You are starting to notice that your images aren't quite what you thought they would be.
13. You start to notice that, in your images, the models hands, the composition, the depth...isn't quite what you wanted.
14. Even your very favorite photograph isn't as good as you once thought. "I should have . . . "
15. You are now completely dissatisfied with everything you have ever shot.
16. You begin to realize that your photography is NOTHING compared to the masters.
17. You begin to see the differences in your photography compared to what you see published.
18. Now you are beginning to learn.

[DwightMcCann]

BigRed, absolutely ... there is room for all of us and I am just beginning to learn!

[CyberPet]

Jeff aka BigRed, I tink I have to print out that list and put it in my camera bag and by my computer. GREAT ONE!

[chtgrubbs]

Dwight McCann asked: "How do I make $150,000 from my images?"

Thats easy. Invest $250,00 in time and equipment.

[DwightMcCann]

Cht, amusing but perhaps not too helpful.

[miklav]

Thanks for very interesting discussion. I've read all of it; and though I don't think I can make a valueable contribution I just wanted to thank you.

I classify myself as advanced amateur, never sold any of my photos, just got prizes winning a few small contests...

[Bosscat]

IndyJeff


Thanks for starting this thread. Hopefully it has opened up some eyes.

[Kadath]

Statements like the one quoted above are a prime example of why I no longer offer much advice on the internet, here or any other forums.

I've heard the same sentiments in dozens of forums on dozens of subjects since I started reading Usenet in about 1988 or so. Or perhaps it was on fidonet before that. Every generation has its old fogeys and young whippersnappers. And its inevitable that the fogeys try to protect the vast sums of experience they have accrued over the years and the whippersnappers consume knowledge and expand horizons and eventually turn into fogeys themselves too. Sometimes tho there are fogeys who really relish in sharing what they've learned and even a few who are interested enough in realizing that the snappers have something interesting to add to the conversation.

I dont know where digital media is going (film, photo, music, whatever is next) but I know the old rules dont apply any more.

I guess what makes me different is that I've drunk the coolaid of the internet generation and I truly believe in community and sharing OVER dinosauric obfuscation and hoarding of information resources. Guess its the teacher in me as well, and the boy scout, and the volunteer. I've always thought of the 'Information Superhighway' as a kind of neat pun. Give the highway away for free and teach everyone to drive and the real interesting stuff will happen in the individual cars.

What is happening in photography is nothing different than what is happening in retail, engineering or any of hundreds of other areas. Things change, adapt, die off, grow new roots and race towards new futures. You can either cling desperately to the old ways and die off with them or ride wildly towards new and uncharted frontiers. I know which one sounds more interesting to me. And when the time comes that I'm a fogey myself, I hope I remember that. And pass on whatever I can of value but also keep my ear to the ground for new trends too.

Sam

[DwightMcCann]

Sam, did you mean, "the real interesting stuff will happen in the back seats of the individual cars?":o

[Kadath]

Under the hoods, in the back seats, in the drivers seat and in the glove box. =)

[Kadath]

A lot of what I mean is said a hell of a lot better in the Photo Pirates thread.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81777

"Know what I say? Shoot it digitally, do your post processing clean-up, and then give them the files and say ADIOS. Maybe you can charge MORE than the guy who provides a full-service deal with book, prints, etc.. Explain that they can get GREAT photography from you and NOT have to worry about fooling with reprints. they won't be limited to YOUR choice in albums, and they can lay out the album whenever they feel like it, any way that they want to. " -- Bloo Dog

"I think the photographers business model has to change with the advent of digital cameras, cheap prints, printing at home, etc. You should charge enough for your time that you make money there, and don't rely on reprints to make a living. The downside to that is you might price yourself out of the market, as others might price themselves lower and deal with the lack of reprints later." --Tim

Two very smart guys right there. And this is only on one small facet of the changes introduced by digital media.

Sam

[rich_yau]

Everyone who doesn't live in the US: refresh www.istockphoto.com . =p

[Mthorpe_Davies]

I know one couple who have spent getting on for $50,000 between them for camera gear - MK-II's, 300 and 600 lenses, etc. They tread all over working photogs territory and give away their work for free. Their work isn't that good (good gear - no talent), but when it is free you can imagine everyone wants it.

One danger about giving work away for free is you could be taking bread out of the mouth of people who need to earn their living from it. If you want to do something for free, just be aware of the impact on other photographers, if there is any. You could find yourself a pariah, just like those above.

So what, if you are talented enough someone giving away free (crap) images isn't going to affect your income. The creme always rises to the top.

[Belmondo]

So what, if you are talented enough someone giving away free (crap) images isn't going to affect your income. The creme always rises to the top.Sadly, I think you're wrong about this. There are some people who will pay for the better images, but there are far more who will settle for the mediocre product just because it's cheaper.

When someone drastically undercuts your prices and takes away business, that is purely an economic issue not at all related to your talent, or the other person's lack thereof. In some ways, it's the Wal-Mart business model; sell things cheap enough, and you'll put the competition out of business.

[dgelrod]

KennyG

Where do you go to sell that 'great picture?' Lets say you go to a sporting event and happen to get a great picture of whomever. Technically it is a sound picture and everyone you show it to says you should have sold it. Where is that place?

Thanks,

Glen

[IndyJeff]

For those of you who want to know where you can get $150,000 for a photo, that is an unusual happening if it even exists outside of the world of the paparazzi.

There is a freelance photographer out of Cincinnati named Thomas Witte, a great photographer and generally good guy. He went on an assignment for local newspaper awhile back to cover a kid with no legs who plays football.
He submitted to SI and all of a sudden he is getting calls from all over God's creation wanting photos of that kid. Better than me retelling it, read it yourself at Witte Article (http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1477)

After you read the article you will see that he had no expectations of this turning into what it did. You never know.
Do you think the guy who shot a photo of President Clinton speaking with a chubby girl in a beret in the middle of a crowd thought he had a gold mine?


Thanks dgelrod for bringing this thread back from the dead. Now to answer your question
Where do you go to sell that 'great picture?'

You have to know who would be interested in that photo. What is it? Lets say for example it is a racing event and it is a spectacular crash involving two drivers and one is a big name in that series. Will National Geographic be interested? No, but a racing magazone probably would be but, which one? Who covers that series? Is there a local paper who does weekly or monthly reports on the events at that track? That is where you start looking. Remember one thing too, time is of the essence. Tomorrow is too late to contact someone about a crash that happened today.
If your going to an event contact the possible clients beforehand and let them know that you will be attending. Simply ask them if they might be interested in looking at what you get. A good line to follow that question is, " I will edit and create a gallery and have it online for you to look at by 9pm that night.
One of the best books on the planet is The Photographers Market Handbook. You can buy your own copy or do what I do, go to the library and check it out. You know what you shoot on a regular basis, look for clients who use that type of images in their publication.
This won't be a 30 minute project to find them either. I would plan on taking a whole day on a Sunday to go thru the book listing everyone of the possible clients you can find in that book. Who knows what may happen.

Last July I got a call/email, I don't remember which, from a guy who was looking for a photographer to get a shot of a guy who owned a bowling alley. He was being featured in the magazine for his involvement with a local high school bowling team. Heck I didn't even know high schools had bowling teams nor did I know there was a trade magazine just for bowling center owners. I do now and if they ever have another need for a photographer here I was told that my name will be on file as their Indianapolis contact. Now the good part is, this particular publishing company handles 4 or 5 trade magazines, not just Bowling Center Management Magazine. Doing freelance work is a numbers game. You need many clients who are willing to use you because chances are they may only use you 1 or 2 times a year but, if you have 50-75 clients that are willing to use you that 1 or 2 times a year, well then you can make some money at it.

[I Simonius]

Jeff, absolutely excellent points. I have just told a major publication to take a hike. They called me to say they have found someone to give them work for free this year and want me to now do the same. They can stew in their own juices as far as I am concerned and their biggest competitor had a call from me a few minutes after (a deal was struck).

I had one image earn me over $3,000. You would be amazed how many calls/mails I received wanting it for free. Most were very offended when I refused. I loved one comment "Well, it cost you nothing to shoot other than pressing a button". I rolled around on the floor laughing at that one for hours.

Cheap or for free stock agencies can only survive as long as there are people sending them images for nothing. Unfortunately there appears to be a lot of people prepared to prostitute themselves just to see their name in lights and some agencies are quite happy to act as their pimps.

A friend of mine earned $150,000 from one motorsport picture over three years. It was bought over and over again and he still expects some income from it this year. You just never know when you have that 'golden goose'.

Great post, I enjoyed reading it and hopefully some of it will sink in with other readers.

So how do you make that work?

If , say, you reckon you've got a great pic , do you just phone up such and such a publication and say hey Ive got the pic you need?

Also how do you get assurances that they will actually pay you before you let them have the pic
Presumably you have them sign a contract?

How does it work?

thanks

[IndyJeff]

Your much better off to contact them way before you have the 'pic' they need. (Not to be sarcastic here but drop the word 'pic' from your vocabulary, use photo or even better image)

Make your contacts before the season begins, if shooting sports for example, send them an occasional email to tell them you will be at such and such game. If you get a great shot which is a game determining play, email them link to a gallery ASAP. You want them to see your shot beofre some goober calls them and says , "Hey I got a shot of Jim Johnson blocking that last second kick that won the game for East Side High School." If you can set up a gallery after each game, send them a link anyway. You never know when they may come back and say they would like image # 9229.

If the editor is familiar with your work, even if he has never bought anything, that gives you a leg up on Goober who the editor has never heard of let alone talked to.

As for pricing, establish a price before you send it to them. After they say they want it, I generally send a contract stating what, how much, how it will be used and for how long and who owns the copyright (that would be me).
You need to ask questions also like will this be a front page image above or below the fold? How big will the image be?
Now chances are if you are submitting to a local newspaper, they will tell you how much you are paid. Don't go out and buy a new lense either because your probably looking at $50 or less.

[I Simonius]

Your much better off to contact them way before you have the 'pic' they need. (Not to be sarcastic here but drop the word 'pic' from your vocabulary, use photo or even better image)

Make your contacts before the season begins, if shooting sports for example, send them an occasional email to tell them you will be at such and such game. If you get a great shot which is a game determining play, email them link to a gallery ASAP. You want them to see your shot beofre some goober calls them and says , "Hey I got a shot of Jim Johnson blocking that last second kick that won the game for East Side High School." If you can set up a gallery after each game, send them a link anyway. You never know when they may come back and say they would like image # 9229.

If the editor is familiar with your work, even if he has never bought anything, that gives you a leg up on Goober who the editor has never heard of let alone talked to.

As for pricing, establish a price before you send it to them. After they say they want it, I generally send a contract stating what, how much, how it will be used and for how long and who owns the copyright (that would be me).
You need to ask questions also like will this be a front page image above or below the fold? How big will the image be?
Now chances are if you are submitting to a local newspaper, they will tell you how much you are paid. Don't go out and buy a new lense either because your probably looking at $50 or less.


thanks for that (and of course I wouldn't use the word 'pic' to an editor!)

[DwightMcCann]

Can't remember if I have said this before in this thread, but following on from Indy about pay, I am will to share here that when I shoot for the Santa Barbara News Press they give me the princely sum of $40 which may require 30 minutes driving, two hours shooting, post processing and ftp'ing to the paper. OTOH, when I shoot for the casino I make over ten times that shooting "first three songs" (maybe 20 minutes ... although I show up an hour early) and four to eight hours post processing, burning three CDs and making three prints. To make it freelancing for publications you need a LOT of contacts in place and then you need that spectacular image!

[IndyJeff]

Heck Dwight at $40 for an assignment you can quit your day job LOL.

On a serious note tho, I have had images picked up by small local papers and been paid $25-$35 but, that was just extra money on top of what I was already being paid by someone else. One paper I contacted after a kid who went to my hs won a state wrestling title paid me a whopping $7.00 for that shot. Needless to say I just assumed that they would pay me the same as they had before. Now if they call and want an image, it is on my terms based upon placement, circulation.

[Mthorpe_Davies]

For those of you who want to know where you can get $150,000 for a photo, that is an unusual happening if it even exists outside of the world of the paparazzi.



The last I heard the photo of Gazza crying after England lost at the football world cup a few years back had earnt the photographer about 2 million pounds. I came across a webpage article which listed the value of some of the great sports moments.

[I Simonius]

The last I heard the photo of Gazza crying after England lost at the football world cup a few years back had earnt the photographer about 2 million pounds. I came across a webpage article which listed the value of some of the great sports moments.

so did he sell it through an agency or something

It always a mazes me when you hear of these shots that make it big, sometimes by unknown photogs, how did they get all the paperwork together in time, I mean if youre going to make a million that means lots and lots of rights have been signed, non?

[Thornfield]

It seems to me that to be a professional photographer you have to know your craft and your subject....and as such you would know when you have a picture that is worth the money. As an amateur people are unsure of their skill, their pictures and their worth. First of all I would suggest that to be good enough to make the big money you'd better know your craft and your subject matter. Not much point going to a football game if landscape is your stuff etc. The points made against Istock are all valid, however, if people want to pass themselves off as a professional then they have to be good enough to be professional in concuct also. And if indeed they are then the likes of Istock should not worry them that much. If you do quality work discerning people will see it as such and use you. The cheap skates will continue to use Istock, seeing as the pictures are royalty free there will never be any real value in the image and the only person that loses is the person that took the picture (and they only have themselves to blame)There are people that will buy a Porsche and there are people that will buy a toyota. As photographers are we turning out luxury or practical goods. I have a feeling that the people that are turning out the Porsches in photography don't give a toss about the likes of Istock. The "professionals" that are turning out the toyotas are the ones that are worried.

[DwightMcCann]

Thornfield, I believe your point, slightly paraphrased as, "If your work is masterful and unique art then the existence of pedestrian competition is not threatening" is right on the money. While I am relatively new at Live Entertainment Photography, only having been shooting it at all for about four years and only in the last year or so world class talent in a world class venue, I already know my images are excellent. When I talk with tour managers I have no qualms saying, "My work is as good as it gets" as I pass them my card ... I don't mean to suggest that they care, only that after spending huge amounts of time looking I have not come across images better than mine, although I see some that are as good. And when other accredited photographers show up at the casino, I make every attempt to empower them to get the best images they can (I offer to loan equipment, I get them required passes, I suggest the best shooting locations, I make sure they know where the free bottled water is and I make sure the guards know they are OK) because I have discovered that no matter what I still get better, more dynamic and powerful photographs than they do ... it is almost a matter of pride with me.

I also think that the perceived threat to professional photography by the masses as a result of digital technology is as much or more a matter of communication than it is of accessibility: when the only way to share images was by sharing photo albums and when the only way to advertise was in the local paper and hanging out a shingle, none of us were aware of even the photographers in the next town, let alone the next state, or country. Now, right here on POTN, I am aware of a dozen guys who shoot Live Entertainment and post in the Performing Arts forum. But you know what, rather than being a threat to me they are a bottomless resource of ideas, support and validation.

If you are a businessman then you better be a capitalist and see competition as your friend and quit whining about amateurs hurting you, because if amateurs can hurt you it really doesn't say much about the appeal of your work.:evil:

[PhotosGuy]

Great post, Dwight!

[I Simonius]

If you are a businessman then you better be a capitalist and see competition as your friend and quit whining about amateurs hurting you, because if amateurs can hurt you it really doesn't say much about the appeal of your work.:evil:


Right on, Dwight!

[Kadath]

There are some people who will pay for the better images, but there are far more who will settle for the mediocre product just because it's cheaper.

There are a hell of a lot more people who will pay to stay over night in a Motel-6 than there are who will stay at a four seasons, does that mean that the Four Seasons is endagered by M6? Or that we should feel sorry for T4S?

Note that I didnt come up with this example, I'm paraphrasing someone else I saw post this at modelmayhem, I'm sliding down the slope to plagiarism =)

Sam

[Kadath]

Oh, and a big "Right On" for Dwight, thats an awesome attitude to have these days.

[symes]

There are a hell of a lot more people who will pay to stay over night in a Motel-6 than there are who will stay at a four seasons, does that mean that the Four Seasons is endagered by M6? Or that we should feel sorry for T4S?

Note that I didnt come up with this example, I'm paraphrasing someone else I saw post this at modelmayhem, I'm sliding down the slope to plagiarism =)

While I agree with most of the statements in this thread...this is not one of them...

This is not a great comparison at all...Because people "KNOW" what they are getting with a four seasons hotel versus a Motel 6...However, many people do not always know the difference between GOOD and POOR quality photographs...Is it the photographers responsibility to show this and explain it to the client...yes...but first you have to get the client in front of you...and that is difficult when you have so many willing to do the trade for nothing...

I agree with Dwight that you have to do it bigger and better to succeed and that is true of almost everything in life...

Cheers,

[Poco]

This is not a great comparison at all...Because people "KNOW" what they are getting with a four seasons hotel versus a Motel 6...However, many people do not always know the difference between GOOD and POOR quality photographs...Is it the photographers responsibility to show this and explain it to the client...yes...but first you have to get the client in front of you...and that is difficult when you have so many willing to do the trade for nothing...


Hmmm, I think if you have to explain the difference to a customer about the difference between a GOOD and POOR photograph then you have the wrong customer. If a person is happy with a POOR, in your opinion, photograph then why should they pay more? It sounds like they got exactly what they wanted.

Isn't photography an art form? Aren't the customers buying art? How would you like it if someone told you that the art you like is POOR and you should pay more for better art? You like POOR music :p

I think more money has been lost to publishers of photography books from online forums like this than to photographers from cheap+crappy photos. I think everyone should stop posting advice in these forums since it takes away from the revenue of respectable professional authors. The free advice here is POOR and the professional advice in books is GOOD :rolleyes:.

[viodea]

I agree customers for Pro and amateur are different.
I have friends can't tell the different between a $200 and $5000 stereo. Why would they spend $4800 more for the "same thing" (to their ears).
The same in photograhpy. If they don't see the different in a $1 and $1000, why would they spend that much money for it.

[elkootcho]

Never thought I'd see this happen: apprantly istockphoto has partnered in some way with Getty Images (Jonathan Klein/CEO & Co-Founder of Getty). Not many details provided but I'm curious to see where this goes...

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=159

[Mathiau]

good post and valid points - certainly something i will remeber going forward now that i am becoming more serious about my photography.

[StealthLude]

Excellent Thread... it got me thinking too.

[JCR]

Add me to the list of new guys with an adjusted attitude after reading this.

[jobber73]

There is often much debate on what makes a photographer a 'professional' rather than just an 'amateur'. Usually these devolve into long winded, philosophical musings with no real answer.

My take? A professional photgrapher understands all the points of the original post and apporaches his/her photography as such. An amateur doesn't.

IndyJeff just made professionals out of a lot of people with that post. :)

[Lord_Malone]

They will find something suitable for their needs and some other schmuck will be thrilled that his photo was used. Guess what? You both got paid the same....nothing!



Okay. I'm guilty of being a "schmuck".

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=140865

It won't happen again. :(

[DwightMcCann]

I really enjoyed telling the Sir Tom Jones people they could not have my images for free. OTOH, they didn't change their minds and decide to pay me. :-) But it was the right thing to do. I have some of the best Live Performance images of him in existence. Maybe when he dies I'll sell 'em off the net, eh? :-) I expect they could license them from me now and sell them off their website and make good money but sometimes ego and pride are not only sinful but less than lucrative!:rolleyes:

[Az2Africa]

I agree. But, they say be careful wtat you wish for. I did a couple of weddings for free for friends last year just for the experience. I found that it wasn't really something I enjoyed, but the photos came out well. Then one of thier clients saw some of the shots and called to see if I would shoot his wedding in California in June. I didn't want to do it, so I just quoted him a high price so he would go away. I will be shooting a wedding in California on June 11th.:confused: You just never know what your work is worth to someone else.

[scattashot]

thanks

It took 45 minutes to read all the post and it has enlightened my perspective

thanks

[scattashot]

as a rule i do not shoot for free,
my perspective is, if i dont shoot the event for free you are going to pay Uncle fred down the road so why not pay me if we are friends

i believe there is that $150K picture out there so in my car i always have a camera fully charged for that one moment when i am at the spot to capture a world changing photo. It is better to be prepared and not get a chance than to get achance and not be prepared

[Racer23]

All I can say is WOW! I found this thread while beginging my search for a good stock photo company. When I woke up my feeling was that my images were worth what people are willing to pay for them. I think that my attitude is changed after reading this whole thread. My time and effort is what I want it to be. THere are more people willing to do business my may than not. Just need to find them. NOw I am not going to rule out a stock photo company I just need to find one that will pay what I want. I have a couple shots out of a few thousand that I think are really worth a lot to the right people, landscapes, motorsports, still life....

I have been shooting motorsports for only 1 year and took as many photo classes in Highchool as I could possibly take. But even afer my first racing shoot I posted my images for sale not for free. I have given away maybe 2-3 images only. One to my freind who was at that time my current employer, and another to a friend who has helped me, and given me a few tips and tricks. SO the price was zero but they did pay me from help and their time.

Since then I have shot for a magazine (not for free or credit) and hopefully I can have something in my resume to show other publications. I currently don't have a real high quality portfolio online but after my images are printed I will just keep each copy of that magazine as my printed portfolio to show other editors.

[antc]

wow, this thread really has enlightened me. i am also thinking about marketing my images at the minute.

thanks for all the great advice in this thread. taken me a while to read through it but its been a very interesting read.

[Daya]

Wow ! great info to start with ...right timing for me ...learnt a lot ...

thanks everyone...it was very insitefull...

[justchris]

So what happens when an amateur is able to produce professional quality images and feels perfectly comfortable giving them away for free? Maybe the guy pulls in a six-figure income to begin with and couldn't care less about being paid for his images.

Isn't that just kind of, tough crap for the professional? I mean, the guy above isn't doing anything wrong. The more I read about this particular issue, the more I come to think that the standard issue "pro" attitude only exists because quality images are no longer that hard to make.

Jeff said something about an amateur with a DRebel and a 75-300 lens, as if that were something to scoff at from a "pro" POV. Hate to break it to you buddy, but a shooter using that setup who has a solid grasp on how to use it can put an image on the cover of any periodical on earth.

That's just the state of things.

[DwightMcCann]

So what happens when an amateur is able to produce professional quality images and feels perfectly comfortable giving them away for free? Maybe the guy pulls in a six-figure income to begin with and couldn't care less about being paid for his images.

Isn't that just kind of, tough crap for the professional? I mean, the guy above isn't doing anything wrong. The more I read about this particular issue, the more I come to think that the standard issue "pro" attitude only exists because quality images are no longer that hard to make.

Jeff said something about an amateur with a DRebel and a 75-300 lens, as if that were something to scoff at from a "pro" POV. Hate to break it to you buddy, but a shooter using that setup who has a solid grasp on how to use it can put an image on the cover of any periodical on earth.

That's just the state of things.

Mellow Out. Don't be so confrontational! Respect others opinions as you want yours respected ... even if you don't get the respect you think you deserve.

Yes, it is tough crap for the professional. Yes, the photographer is much more important than the equipment. No, a lot of periodicals have requirements that prevent DRebel's images from being used ... they also prevent my images from being used, but that is a different issue.

Let me suggest this POV: a good photographer with a crappy camera gets work because she has given away so many wonderful images. Now people want to pay her. She does work for cheap and it is good. People see it. The Pro's are all angery because she is taking their work and they complain, mostly on POTN. Then she gets even more work and decides she would like a better camera and besides Playboy and National Geographic have pixel requirements she has to meed and needs at least 12MP. So she buys some Pro equipment. She also discovers it is more reliable, has more features that are fun to use, and those white lenses seem to garner a bit of respect, even though we all know that amateurs don't require respect the way the Pros do and generally don't want praise or compliments about their work! After all, too much praise will make you evil. So, now, has our photographer lady slipped over to the dark side because she has Pro equipment? Do you think Pros have different genes? They are just photographers who have done well with their work. Most started out with a Kodak Brownie (if they are old enough.) And it is human nature to want to protect your source of income and/or want your profession to be professional.

Cut us some slack. We are just guys like you whose life paths are slightly different.

[IndyJeff]

To expand a little on what Dwight said, what if your making a six figure income and giving away the prints, fine and dandy. Now what are you going to do when your spending too much of your time on it and giving away prints. You'll quit, right? Of course. Now where is the consumer left? I will tell you, out in the cold with no photographer available because the guy who used to charge and was put out of business by the give-away-Charlie, no longer does photography. In fact, he had to sell his equipment on eBay because he had too much money invested in euipment, and since he couldn't pay for it from income derived from photography he had to sell it, at a loss.

So, who really gets hurt by the free prints given away by photographers?

[primoz]

There's one more thing to consider. What if there's another guy, who gets six-figure income in some other job, and goes and do free work in field from where you are getting six-figure income? Would that still be fine? I guess not ;)
So try to think a bit wider. It helps sometimes ;)

[jcw122]

One question...does this mean I should buy some L glass to make sure the images I DO capture, and not sell for cheap...are good? Heheh jk.

Excellent points. I was going to get into Microstock Photography, but now I SHALL NOT!

Let's spread the word guys, stock photography is bad!

[PuR HART]

Love this thread has to be my favorite read in months thanks i need to reread them all again and ponder

[jcw122]

This thread still doesn't answer the question, to what I should charge. OK so I won't charge $0 and I won't charge too little...now what? These two pricing stickies haven't helped much.

[IndyJeff]

This thread still doesn't answer the question, to what I should charge. OK so I won't charge $0 and I won't charge too little...now what? These two pricing stickies haven't helped much.

If you want to know what to charge I would suggest starting a thread asking for specifics. You need to list what type of use, editorial, advertising, stock or personal. Also how many times will the image be reproduced, such as what is the circulation of the newspaper or magazine. If an ad, what type of ad? A brochure, a billboard, newspaper, magazine, web ad? Also the duration or print run of the ad.

[codearachnid]

I can take no claim for this great representation of pricing - but WTD hit it right on the head.

http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/iWeb/What%20the%20Duck/Images/WTD156.gif (http://www.whattheduck.net)

[StaticThought]

Great Thread Guys, Eyes Wide Open from now on.

Many Thanks.

[SeanJ]

Hi, I'm newish to the forum and wanted to give you a gift. Maybe you're already aware of it!

Go to http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/phcalc.html and check out the excel workbook that is designed to help you calculate what your minimum daily fee should be.

It is in pound sterling but could be easily be changed to US dollars. Also, whilst your there have a look around for a lot of great resources for photographers.:)

[roundsquare1]

For those of you who want to know where you can get $150,000 for a photo, that is an unusual happening if it even exists outside of the world of the paparazzi.

There is a freelance photographer out of Cincinnati named Thomas Witte, a great photographer and generally good guy. He went on an assignment for local newspaper awhile back to cover a kid with no legs who plays football.
He submitted to SI and all of a sudden he is getting calls from all over God's creation wanting photos of that kid. Better than me retelling it, read it yourself at Witte Article (http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1477)

After you read the article you will see that he had no expectations of this turning into what it did. You never know.
Do you think the guy who shot a photo of President Clinton speaking with a chubby girl in a beret in the middle of a crowd thought he had a gold mine?


Thanks dgelrod for bringing this thread back from the dead. Now to answer your question


You have to know who would be interested in that photo. What is it? Lets say for example it is a racing event and it is a spectacular crash involving two drivers and one is a big name in that series. Will National Geographic be interested? No, but a racing magazone probably would be but, which one? Who covers that series? Is there a local paper who does weekly or monthly reports on the events at that track? That is where you start looking. Remember one thing too, time is of the essence. Tomorrow is too late to contact someone about a crash that happened today.
If your going to an event contact the possible clients beforehand and let them know that you will be attending. Simply ask them if they might be interested in looking at what you get. A good line to follow that question is, " I will edit and create a gallery and have it online for you to look at by 9pm that night.
One of the best books on the planet is The Photographers Market Handbook. You can buy your own copy or do what I do, go to the library and check it out. You know what you shoot on a regular basis, look for clients who use that type of images in their publication.
This won't be a 30 minute project to find them either. I would plan on taking a whole day on a Sunday to go thru the book listing everyone of the possible clients you can find in that book. Who knows what may happen.

Last July I got a call/email, I don't remember which, from a guy who was looking for a photographer to get a shot of a guy who owned a bowling alley. He was being featured in the magazine for his involvement with a local high school bowling team. Heck I didn't even know high schools had bowling teams nor did I know there was a trade magazine just for bowling center owners. I do now and if they ever have another need for a photographer here I was told that my name will be on file as their Indianapolis contact. Now the good part is, this particular publishing company handles 4 or 5 trade magazines, not just Bowling Center Management Magazine. Doing freelance work is a numbers game. You need many clients who are willing to use you because chances are they may only use you 1 or 2 times a year but, if you have 50-75 clients that are willing to use you that 1 or 2 times a year, well then you can make some money at it.

OK, so say you do find the right party that would be interested and THEY ARE interested and they ask, what do we need to do to purchase that?

Now the ball is in my court, I don't know what to do. I know is a small company that sells sport drinks, I know them since a friend of mine works there, they want to use it in a future product add, maybe not.

Do I sell the photo for say $400 but I keep the rights? and what does that actually mean? Where can I find out more info on this?

I'd like to do it right from the start.

[IndyJeff]

First off stop using the words "purchase and sell'. Instead what you want to say is license. You will license the photo to them but, do they want an exclusive use for 1 year, 2 years or 5 years or are they wanting exclusive rights indefinately? If you are asking for $400, for a one year licensing, and they want an exclusive indefinately, then you can look at a full rights buyout. Realistically they may not use the image more than 3 years at most but, they don't want to see it on a competitors product in 4 years. So if your price is $400/year/exclusive, come back with a buyout of $2000. Point out that they can recycle the image again after it has been shelved for a couple of years or use it in an entirely different use and there would no additional cost.

Of course you need to consider how much exposure the image will have, how will they use it exactly? Billboards, TV, banners at sporting events, bus signs, point of sale displays? The more uses the more the price is usually. Personally, I think $400 is on the cheap but, you need to findout what kind of budget they have for this.
I would ask how they are using it and how much the ad campaign will be in dollars spent. If they say $5,000 then you aren't far off at $400 however if they say $2.2 million, your low, way low.
Whatever price you shoot them, I would ask 25% more than you really want. If they balk or decline you can always ask what kind of figure did they have in mind.

Just for a reference check here (http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm) for pricing for billboard use, quite a bit over your $400 figure. Just click Advertising / BILLBOARD and start calculations.

[chakalakasp]

Indeed. Just as a point of reference, I recently licenced a single photo (2 years, print and digital, unlimited) for two motifs in an international advertising campaign. The ad agency only used the photo in a minor way in the background of the advertisment, and it's not very recognisable in the final design. Even with this limited useage, the price ended up being $3,000 for a NON exclusive deal. Unless you're dealing with a small potatoes company who isn't going to use the image in a wide arena, $400 is probably a bit cheap.

[blackwize]

Let me share some stories with you. I live and work in Ghana as a creative director for an ad agency; and a photographer on the side. Recently, I had a call from the Press Secretary of Baroness Valerie Amos of the British House of Lords. He said she was coming to Ghan for the 50th Anniversary Celebration and they needed a photographer. I thought 'Wow that must be some opportunity'! So I sent him my rate for a day's shoot. 1,350 US dollars. He wrote back to tell me another photographer was charging $450. I just forgot about the so called opportunity.

I come from a world where you pay for the things you love. If you love a woman and want to marry her, you pay the dowry. If you see a house and you'd love rent or own it, you pay for it. If you dream of owning any car, you have start saving to own it.

I get twice angry when I get those freebie and low-pay calls because I am aware I am a Ghanaian living in a third world country (I still don't know who divided th world into three though)... but they forget the price of 24-70/2.8L is the same everywhere. So why should I charge any cheaper because I'm in Africa?

[whitedragon]

thats grate advice but being a compleat beginner i was thinking of selling some landscape shots at A4 size but i don't know what to charge for them

[Kadath]

I've been reading some of Dan Heller's blog recently and I think he nails EXACTLY how things are progressing and how individuals are getting lost in their own small part of the picture and not seeing the grand sweeping changes that are happening.

http://danheller.blogspot.com/

Some choice quotes:
As more companies engage in the business of licensing images, photographers with credibility will gravitate to the sites that offer a better return on their money. Naturally, these will be sites who have good traffic, good policies, good user-interfaces, etc. In fact, I've seen rather high-end pro photographers with their images on Flickr (including yours truly), even though there are currently no image sales opportunities. Imagine what would happen if there were. In effect, the free-market system gives incentive for companies to attract the quality photographers with good reputations because it's a win-win.


I will give yet another nod to why I think Getty's acquisitions of so many companies may prove to be for naught. With the exception of perhaps a few niche players, the most basic, fundamental truism about photography remains: there are more people who have it as a hobby than as a profession, and the barrier to entry is low. There is no way you can eat up all the Doritos in the world because, as their ads on TV used to say, "Go ahead, we'll make more!" It's true that Getty's objective is less about controlling the images as it is about controlling the places that sell them. And while they may achieve a short-term monopoly on certain distribution outlets, which may result in higher prices for some small specialty markets, that short honeymoon period for Getty will end once photo-sharing sites become new outlets for photographers where the open market can decide their rates.



The big paradigm leap that many photographers have yet to make is the fact that the commodity market exists, that the rules are different, and that Getty is moving towards it.
...
First and foremost, unlike software and business productivity, where MS was able to corner the market because companies were so locked in, both in low prices, and legacy investment, photos are quite different. The list I provided earlier applies: that it's a cheap and easy commodity to produce on a wide scale. The most compelling difference is that photographs can be made by people who didn't graduate with Degrees in Computer Science.


Here's the bottom line tho!


What does all this mean for photographers? Well, first and foremost, stop thinking it's all about you. Large companies really don't need you the way you think. The more you believe you're a chicken coming home to roost, the most likely you'll be the one on the chopping block.

There are two ways to deal with this.

First, change your perception of how you view the business side of your job. For example, in all the years I've been in the tech world, I have never heard a software engineer say, "don't make FREE software or shareware! You're hurting the market for everyone else!" In fact, the very objective of most start-up tech companies is to get a footing by competing in any and every way they possibly can to get visibility and users.
...
Next, don't look at price as the beginning and ending of the photo business. (See my previous blog entry for more on this, as well as this article.) Building your career is about a lot more than just submitting your images to a stock agency and being expected to get (what you believe to be) fair compensation.
...
Accept that business models change, and that the industry does too. Today, it's industry bifurcating into two distinct groups, creating opportunities at both ends. The mega-large distributors, and the smaller end businesses, usually individuals or small-scale specialty shops.
...
Indeed, the very nature of this bifurcation means that good individual photographers and small-scale photo shops will regain much of the businesses they lost to the larger agencies as they grew up. Here is where the name-brand recognition ("celebrity star power") really can work for you.



The primary misunderstanding involved here is the assumption that successful stock photography sales boils down to price. While I've said many times in the past that photography is a commodity with infinite supply, this does not mean that all units within this supply chain have equal value, or that all merchants compete solely on price.


Sam

[kenyc]

Great info Sam, thanks!
KAC

[Kadath]

You bet.
Normally I'm not much for internet fights. But I really think I see this issue differently than a lot of people do on this forum. Maybe it's cause I'm a colorblind amateur noob, maybe it's cause I really dig what people are trying to do with open source and creative commons, or maybe it's just that I'm just removed from the emotional side of it and its something my students and I talk about a LOT.

Either way it's going to be 'fun' for me seeing how this all continues to play out and I AM aware that it is people's real livelihoods and careers we are discussing. But it really burns me when I see comments made about how price cutting and giving away work are somehow devaluing other's work. It simply isnt true in my view.

[Kadath]

Some more interesting links:
http://wikiprophoto.blogspot.com/2007/04/critical-evaluation-of-american-society.html

DO check out that ASMP bulletin that got cited:
http://www.asmp.org/pdfs/bulletins/2001/april01.pdf

I don't for a minute think that starting a new collective for image creation would work, but it is interesting seeing how it does work for the music composers, simply because they started early and stood strong. I suspect that their collective will even survive the move to remove DRM for digital music and even prosper as music becomes more readily available, searchable, packagable, collectable, etc because of the freedom that DRM free files holds.

There ARE alternative business models that have merit, and the ones that adapt/survive in this new world will make the ones of today look like gulags that held their contributors back because of their shortsightedness. The ones that 'get it right' first will be rich beyond imagining.

Google is on the move trying to make 'takedowns' more palatable:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/04/requesting-removal-of-content-from-our.html

Can't wait to see what Mark Cuban has to say about that!
http://www.blogmaverick.com/

Sam

[ghibli99]

What an amazing thread. I've just spent more time than I should have today at work reading through it in its entirety. It's fascinating seeing how things have changed (and how they haven't) in the two years since this thread was created.

I ran the complete spectrum of emotions reading it... from complete despair to energized optimism. As a relative newbie to photography, reading about the business side of things was all at once sobering, frustrating, encouraging, and enlightening. Like many, I plan on first creating a small side business for myself to generate some extra income, and perhaps in the future, turn it into my main career. Threads like this serve as an excellent source of information for folks like me who want to take the next step, but who might not have the right shoes on to take it.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this; it was a great read, and I'll surely come back to it again (and again).

-Mike

[Kadath]

Definitly true Mike. I appreciate that there are all kinds of differing viewpoints here. I actually posted some more on this in another thread that those who have this one stickied might be interested in reading:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3101678#post3101678

In that thread I explore the notion that a lot of people have that giving out freedoms by using Creative Commons licenses obviates Copyright. Nothing could be further from the truth. Creative Commons EXTENDS the options artists have utilizing the foundational principles of copyright in interesting ways without unduly taking away any of the priveledges that it grants for those who choose not to employ them.

As I note in that thread, I feel its much more damaging in the long run for artists to sell their work for $1-$2 per use than it is to give it away for non commercial use by employing a CC license while still retaining all rights where they could actually profit from it.

[embdude]

What is someone like myself to do?

An advanced amateur with a regular non-photographer job.

The micro stock agencies dont really offer a true solution but the real agencies have high barriers in place to keep me out.

[Kadath]

It really is no different for amateurs or pros. For amatuers it probably pays to think small and think LOCAL.

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/05/01/analysis-what-is-the-role-of-the-artist-in-a-digital-age

And another thought from today's Guardian:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2070571,00.html

[canondslruser]

My take on the matter is this. If people want to use the micro stock sites to sell images for little return per image then that's fine.....it's their image and they can do whatever they want with it. Myself I wouldn't sell for such a low price....a few dollars. I can say that because I have a full-time job outside photography. But micro-stock sites are here to stay in this digital age.

My least expensive image has sold for $75 Canadian and my most expensive has been for $300 USD. I'm in the process of selling another one for commercial use. Most of my sales have come from others finding me and not the other way around. I need to do some marketing obviously :)

[Kadath]

Wow, you microstock guys (and those thinking deeply about related issues) should read this:
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2007/05/photographers-dilemma-cooperate-or-not.html

[Daz85]

I was just wondering how companys/newspapers etc find your photos and contact you when they are interested in buying a photo?

Do they find you by finding your website or is there other ways they found you.

Thanks

[sixsixfour]

Great thread! I just have a question: where do you have your pictures posted so that it can be *bought*?

[Geoff_Shawcross]

One place that you can sell you pictures on is (http://smugmug.com). If you subscribe to their pro account, you're able to set your own prices so that you can make a profit.

There are other sites, this is just the one I pulled off the top of my head.

[sixsixfour]

Thanks!

[Mike R]

I would rather not sell any images than use a micro stock agency. I would be too angry if I was paid a few dollars for an image and the saw it use in a major ad campaign.

[FerretDancer]

I'm not sure what papers you're talking about. I am the photo editor for a chain of weekly newspapers. We are pretty small-time and we pay our freelancers $35 to $50 considering the assignment. Our full and part time staff photogs get a weekly salary plus mileage. Not much but it's better than nothing. Yes, the editors like submissions from the community but not for real news or sporting events. It's insulting to read Indy's original rant about newspapers prefering free crap from my neighbor with the point and shoot. Also, we often get calls from readers wishing to purchase the photos. No, we're not talking millions of dollars here but it's better than being laughed at when you tell people you want $800 for one photo.
If you are a well-known pro who can get that kind of money, that's great. But if you are just getting your foot in the door and want the experience I don't thing there is anything wrong with getting $50 for a single photo.