Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

UK Photography rates - was I way off?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

thewilliam
6 Oct 2012 - 7:13 PM


Quote: My friend asked the bride-to-be whether she could see the difference between his work - some of the very best in the UK - and the work of a truly incompetent snapper. Sadly, the answer was "no".

That will not be an unusual reaction. We are hyper-critical on here because we are enthusiasts.

Photographers who aren't at the fag end of the market depend on clients who CAN see the difference between great photography and awful. Drinkers who can't tell the difference between a 2.99 supermarket bottle and a '66 Chateau Margaux might be wasting their money on good wine but there are folk who want to be seen drinking the expensive product.

I've never understood why people will happily pay for "designer" jeans.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
6 Oct 2012 - 7:13 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

newfocus
newfocus  8644 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
6 Oct 2012 - 11:17 PM


Quote: Again, I think the main problem was with the usage. Limiting them to one print run and only 6 months of images of their products is too restrictive and also charging extra for travel.

I'd tend to agree with that too. You need to make things as easy for your client as possible. Many people's first experience of paying for photography is buying from stock libraries and licenses from those libraries tend to revolve around 'use it for your own purposes for as long as you like on and off line but you can't give it to anyone else'. That's understandable and allows people to budget for a project without worrying about never ending ongoing costs for continued use.

Last Modified By newfocus at 6 Oct 2012 - 11:18 PM
thewilliam
7 Oct 2012 - 8:58 AM

I imagine most clients would feel cheated when they're charged for extra usage, especially when it doesn't involve extra work or expense for the photographer.

I generally give an unlimited usage licence: the client can do anything with the images except sell or licence them to a third party. Often a client wants an undertaking that the images won't be used anywhere else. Some clients, generally magazine publishers, demand copyright and this just gives us the option of whether we want the job or not.

One colleague, before he knew better, assigned the copyright to his clients. He later learned that at least one client had made a tidy sum by selling the pictures on.

Last Modified By thewilliam at 7 Oct 2012 - 8:59 AM
stephengee
7 Oct 2012 - 8:07 PM

i was a little surprised that you mentioned"one print run etc".
i cannot believe anybody would pay for that type of deal, as i am new to the uk, i have to learn all the ins and outs of the freelance game ,but in south africa, new zealand and australia they would think you are "nuts" .SmileSmileSmile
the client hands over a cheque and you hand over a cd with all the pix on,its what they wanted and what you got paid for,why complicate it ?.

awphot
awphot  2 United Kingdom
9 Oct 2012 - 3:59 PM


Quote: I imagine most clients would feel cheated when they're charged for extra usage, especially when it doesn't involve extra work or expense for the photographer.

I generally give an unlimited usage licence: the client can do anything with the images except sell or licence them to a third party. Often a client wants an undertaking that the images won't be used anywhere else. Some clients, generally magazine publishers, demand copyright and this just gives us the option of whether we want the job or not.

One colleague, before he knew better, assigned the copyright to his clients. He later learned that at least one client had made a tidy sum by selling the pictures on.

I don't know what clients you deal with but licensing by usage is pretty normal in the commercial world. i.e. you price according to usage. In my case a day rate of xxx which includes an "internal license", anything further i.e. use in P.O.S material would incur xx extra for licensing. If they then wanted to later use that image for national ad campaign including magazines/billboards etc then it would incur further costs.
None of my clients have ever felt "cheated" by that and in most cases expect it.


Magazine publishers TRY and grab copyright and any photographer worth the name would not let them have it. This has been an ongoing fight for years.


Some reading for you folks - US centric but certainly relevant to the UK http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2010/02/05/ad-agency-guide-to-photography-usage-term...

Last Modified By awphot at 9 Oct 2012 - 4:02 PM
danielwaters
9 Oct 2012 - 5:09 PM

A big decision (like hiring someone) is made up of lots of little decisions. The mistake a lot of photographers make in all segments of the market is that they hope to get an assignment on the strength of a quote. Quotes are lifeless sheets of paper that are easy to ignore. If the client has 3 quotes they're likely to pick the lowest or the best deal without regard for all the other factors. It's always best to meet a client when you provide a quote so you can get across your knowledge, personality, wisdom, portfolio etc. Meeting them also shows you care and it's harder for them to say no in person.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Oct 2012 - 8:00 PM

For a job like this I charge about 300 and give them the use of the images for ever and however they want. I tell them that I might use the images myself and that they are not permitted to sell the images themselves.

contemporary dave
12 Oct 2012 - 12:18 PM


Quote: To be fair to thewilliam, I think he was highlighting how a prospective client sees it.

I agree. Recently I had a client ask me why my prints were so expensive (they are not), when all I do is: 'pick up a camera and go 'click''.

BTW for OP's job, I would have charged 800.00 plus expenses, plus charged a minimum of 25.00 per supplied edited high res image.

Last Modified By contemporary dave at 12 Oct 2012 - 12:21 PM
thewilliam
12 Oct 2012 - 12:56 PM

One mentor told me that if fewer than 25% of my prospects consider me expensive, I need to raise my prices.

There's a place in the market for all price points. It's just a matter of talking with the right prospects.

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1022899 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna31 Constructive Critique Points
12 Oct 2012 - 2:55 PM


Quote: For a job like this I charge about 300 and give them the use of the images for ever and however they want.

Way too cheap for a job of this type. Food photography is a very speacialised area that even today doesn't come cheap. It is however, because of current fashion for natural light, one that can be done with the minimum of equipment - even a hundred pound camera - give or take the odd tenner.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 - 4:33 PM


Quote: Way too cheap for a job of this type.

Depends on the area you live in - simply wouldn't get more around here. I shot three in natural light, evening as it happens, with a D700 and a 50mm 1.4.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.