seaLere wrote in post #18260737
So here is a question for you guys...I recently shot a new hospital mock lab that was an addition to a technical school we have here (for the construction company). I am generally one who likes to add my own light but I found that the dynamic range was so low in the rooms (no windows and I didn't need any more detail in the overhead lights). Is there anything you guys would have done to these with your own light? I generally like to add some to furniture and to fill shadows but I really couldn't find a way to use it that would help me.
In the first image I added a tiny bit to the chair, bed, and cabinets but it's very subtle.
Is that a mirror or a window? Only a couple areas register as a big dark, the ceiling, and whatever is in that window/mirror. Both of these things could be taken care of in post, so I think you're alright there. It might feel foreign, but you certainly don't always need to add extra lighting. Fluorescents can be tricky to color match to your strobe, so you certainly don't want to introduce a color cast that wasn't there before.
In fact I've been having trouble getting my Alien Bee 1600 to match tungsten lighting, I would welcome any ideas. I use a full CTO and lately I've been adding a Plus Green gel as it seems to leave a really strong magenta cast. Because of this issue, I try to use hot lights in an all-tungsten scenario, but in this case, unless you have fluorescents in your kit, it may be tough to match the color completely.
When charging for architectural work (say commercial), when charging say an hourly rate, are you including anything for editing time either? Or if you are $250 an hour, it takes 2 hours to shoot, are you charging $500 (assuming 1 license).
I'm either charging per image (with a minimum) or a day rate and other stuff on top. I've tried each strategy to try to figure out which is better for me, my mind is not made up though. I've read accounts of people who've switched from a day rate to a per shot rate, and they claim that it has increased their earnings because the per shot rate is less intimidating than a day rate. What I'm wondering is if their clients can do math or not, because either way you are talking about 4-5 figures, and it would a moment for them to calculate a total based on the per shot rate.
Anyway back on topic, it is common for architecture/interior photographers to have a "processing fee" as a line item that is based on the number of images. So you would have a flat day rate, a rate per image that you would process, then licensing/usage, expenses, etc. There are clients who will balk at some of this extra stuff, so I suppose using a simple per shot rate could be better here, or it could just be that they are cheaper, and you have to take or leave that part of it.
If you don't regularly read aphotoeditor.com, you should, and here are a few examples that relate in some way to architectural photography that might be helpful:
These are all written by Jess Dudley or Craig Oppenheimer from Wonderful Machine, and in addition to seeing a full estimate, you get some really valuable insight as to how they came up with their numbers and their thinking in general.