> I've got a question for those of you who photograph professionally. What do
> you generally use as a mark up for production supplies such as film?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frederic
I charge $30 a roll, this is film kept by me. Individual sides on a
slide show are $5 each or dupes. Misc supplies I heard from the
beginning in the mid seventies 40% markup. I've often followed that.
Prints appear to be expenses but they are really for me in effect Time.
I do them myself and the black & white is usually fiber.
Mark Rabiner
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (DonPhtoPwy)
[1] No matter the equipment/ copy machines are killing the Business for
+ professional photographers
Date: Thu Apr 22 1999
I've been at this professional photography business for many years.
In these last few years the copy machine industry has improved to the point
that they make very good reproduction of photographs.
Unfortunately I come to realize that my customers can take a 4x5" photo
to a
local copy business and receive a really nice 16x20" print. This is
killing me
the 'Originator'. It is wide spread and for those in the professional
photography business you'll soon find your income is going to someone else's
business. It matters not what method you use to arrive at the final print.
Someone else can copy it and there goes your business.
I'd love to read what other professional do with this ' Monster'
on the
market.
Don - in Southern - California/USA
rec.photo.technique.people
From: "Alan" [email protected]
[1] Sales Tax pertaining to photographers.
Date: Sun May 09 1999
Sales tax: Varies by state.
Yes this is off-post but does pertain to most of us here who use film, for
those who do not ever use film and just like to talk about photography, this
won't matter that much.......
It has started in Florida, this week we had a visitor from the Sales Tax
Office. For those of you not acquainted with these fine folks, they can
make the IRS look like warm and snuggly teddy bears. Sales tax enforcement
is very strong in Florida as we do not have a state income tax.
They are going over every receipt for the past three to five years where the
photographer buying film used his tax-exemption. Ho-Ho-Ho, seems it has
something to do with the end user, whose negs are they and charging tax to
the consumer....Ho-Ho-Ho........This nice lady will spend three weeks with
us.
And it is going to be statewide. So they are serious. As long as I have a
signed card (tax -form looks like a 3x5) I am OK and they will go after the
photog. Hello.....
Pro shoots 60 weds a year on 2 1/4 with average 10 rolls which is 600 rolls
plus x 7% x three years x 8 zillion photogs= $$$$$$$ Easy to see why they
are suddenly interested. This is just weekend shooting. That won't even
include those who phony up the card, ( really aren't exempt) and chemicals
etc., Boy will they have a surprise. And its not something you can hide,
they do not need a warrant to check. They ask, you give, or they lock
door...... So I say to you, check with your country, state and local regs in
your area and see where you stand on film purchase and who is responsible
for the sales tax.
I bring this to the forum as a public service announcement and in the spirit
of brotherhood so often shown here amongst the professionals of RPTP.
...
Hmmmmmm...Is it brotherhood or brother-in-the-hood...?
Just My Opinion
Alan
rec.photo.technique.people
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
[1] Re: Sales Tax pertaining to photographers.
Date: Sun May 09 1999
Sales tax folks are much more persnickety than the IRS is
ever. There was a woman who for some reason was racked over
the coals by everyone, one right after the other, luck of
the draw as there wasn't a single error in any reporting
ever found in any transaction, so the story goes. She said
that the IRS were the easiest to deal with, you can
negotiate, they have a sense of humor. The California sales
tax folks were the boneheaded worst. A prom transaction,
120 receipts of the same transaction, $18 and change, plus
sales tax =$20. She swears the guy went through each and
every transaction on adding machine tape one hundred and
twenty times the exact same figures.
AS for what is taxable or not, it varies from state to state
of course. In California, they want you to pay sales tax on
negative film as it is assumed that the photographer keeps
the film and is the consumer of that product. However, if
you use transparency stock, then the client is considered
the consumer of the film and they pay sales tax on the whole
product.
What I got confused about was conflicting advise on paying
sales tax on negative film.
I was told that IF you offer for sale your negatives, then
you don't have to pay sales tax on the film you purchase.
However, another said that you can only get a refund on
sales tax paid on film that you HAVE sold.
Another problem is that California wants you to pay sales
tax (USE TAX) on camera stuff you buy mail-order. AND, if
you shoot some film for personal reasons, they actually want
you to report it and pay sales tax on it, there is a line on
the form for paying tax on materials diverted for personal
use...
The weirdest thing is, photographers must charge tax on our
labor and product, whereas most other service industry
doesn't. Your mechanic charges tax on the parts, but not
the labor. But if we shoot a wedding and we charge a day
fee and prints, all is taxed, even the labor. (Please note
the gratuitous use of a reference to the activity of
photographing PEOPLE in order to keep this post on topic to
this NG)
From: Paul D. Robertson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sales Tax pertaining to photographers.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999
Alan [email protected] is rumored to have uttered :
: They are going over every receipt for the past three to five years where the
: photographer buying film used his tax-exemption. Ho-Ho-Ho, seems it has
You may want to check with a tax lawyer. In at least some jurisdictions,
things used to produce end-user goods are tax exempt. In this case, it's
possible that the negatives are exempt because they're just used to
produce the prints which go to the end-user. IMO it'd be worth the
investment to try that line of reasoning with competent legal counsel if
you're facing a large potential bill and your state laws allow it.
Paul
From: "Alan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Sales Tax pertaining to photographers.
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999
Believe me we went over the receipts and since most of our accts are resale
to pro's, the onus is on the pro to prove that he collected sales tax and
paid the amount to the state. Thats all they are interested in. If I or any
other business have the state form form on hand that says you are exempt
from tax on this item as it is for resale or use in a finished product that
tax is collected on , you are Ok. Thus nobody walks out the door without
the tax being paid or form signed and on hand. Were clean, not a dime out
of order, but some photographers may get a visit as to why are they not
paying sales tax....you know the pro who forgets to keep books...what books?
--
Just My Opinion
...Alan
From: [email protected] (SWIRAL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Sales Tax pertaining to photographers.
Date: 25 May 1999
I only know the NY State law and before you can legally charge sales
ticket in NY State you need to have a resale certificate. If you don't
have a certificate you can't collect tax, but you still owe the money.
I rarely charge sales tax as I don't do that much work for the end user, most
of the work is for agency's and magazines.
In NY it takes 5 min to get the certificate and you end up saving a lot of
money on paying double tax on buying supplies and paying the sales tax on the
project.
You always charge tax on the final bill including all supplies prints and
fee's. So you will have to charge $62.50. for the $1000 bill.
---------------------
I am getting into this thread very late in the game.
May I please ask an elementary question?
On the following wedding scenerio, how much tax do I pay? (my costs for
each line item)
1) Shoot 200 pic's with my RB67 (7 rolls 220; 6 rolls 120) ($50 for film)
2) Processing (4x5's proofs) ($135)
3) Preview album ($15)
4) Enlargements (20 units) ($80)
5) Wedding album ($100)
I have $380 of cost, I sell the package for $1000.
Questions:
a) How much sales tax do I charge the customer? ($62.50? IL sales tax is
6.25%)
b) How much tax do I wind up paying later on after I fill out my quarterly
sheet?
Thanks!
Justin
From: "Patrick Bartek" [email protected]
Organization: NoLife Polymath Group
Date: 2 Jun 99
Subject: Re: Pricing
Regarding Pricing, M. Lee Manning wrote:
> I need to establish a rate card for various types of shoots; including
> portraits, location shoots for bands, real estate, etc. Anyone have a
> system that works particularly well for them?
Setting prices is about the hardest part of the photo business. Start
by checking what other photographers in your area charge. Here's how
I've charged over the years.
For formal portraits: charged a sitting fee that covered shooting
time (1/2 hour), film, processing and proofs; then so much for prints.
The prints where pro quality machine ones with a very high markup,
usually around 5 times what they cost me. The bigger the prints had
less markup. Get a deposit.
For location band shootings: per hour charge with a 2 hour minimum,
plus film, processing and proofing. Print charges like for the PR
stuff above. Be sure to get a deposit equal to about 1 hour of
shooting time to reserve the shoot, and then get the balance, when
they come in to pick up their proofs. Get a 50% deposit on ALL print
orders. (This will at least cover your print costs, if they skate.)
Balance due COD.
For real estate: If it's for many homes at a time on a regular
basis, a flat fee per house works best. If they want interiors, too,
a flat fee works, but it will have to be more than for exteriors, a
lot more, since you'll have to do at least some simple supplementary
lighting. I never got deposits on these. Just, in full, COD.
For just above everything else, charge an hourly fee, plus
film, processing and expenses. I markup my film cost and lab
processing 100%. Prints additional. 100% markup. For travel
time, outside your base area, charging half your hourly fee is normal.
Be sure to get a deposit to RESERVE the shooting date. No deposit. No
shoot. You'd be surprised how many people will show up for a shoot,
if they've put money down. By the way, if the client is late, don't
extend their booked time without charging for it. Your time is
valuable.
Some photographers have different hourly rates depending on the format
used with 35mm being the least. I never much cared for this practice.
Did I say to get a deposit before commencing any work?
Good Luck....
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From: "Thomas Herbert" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Freelance credentials
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999
You already have your answer. Before I began freelancing full-time and
stringing for the AP I needed a portfolio of work to show...well, you
can't a portfolio of work if you can't get into events.... etc etc So I
made my own on my computer in Pagemaker, made up a fake news agency, used
my own address and phone number in case anyone checked, took it to kinkos
and printed it out on a color printer, got a photo, laminated the whole
thing, then bent it a couple of times ground some dirt in it and I was in
business.
I photographed everything, forest fires, sporting events, breaking news, and
the president 3 times. I watched one day at a pre-set for the president as
numerous photogs were turned away..why..because they had the IFPO passes.
You also must look and act like a professional and know the systems for how
things work. Almost all events have their own credentials your press pass is
merely a means to get those.
So to wrap up I didn't feel bad about it, and I even sold some of the photos
to magazines and I made up a great portfolio which finally got me the
permanent work I wanted. Now I get the opportunity to work for magazines
like Time, and newspapers all over the US, Canada, and Mexico. Anyone who
doubts me (we are all so skeptical in this business) e-mail me privately and
I will e-mail .jpgs of the stories and magazines they have appeared in. Hope
this helps anyone.
--
Thomas Herbert, Photojournalist
(915) 485-3018 pager/voicemail
[email protected]
(Dervical) wrote:
> I have recently begun to freelance. I have been in the field for over 9 years,
> but not for the media. I have recently begun freelancing for some local papers
> in my area (Philadelphia). How do I go about getting credentials, the papers I
> work for say they do not issue credentials to freelancers on a permanent basis.
> They only give me what I need to get into the evernt I am going to cover. How
> do I go about getting a press pass for events that I am not specifically hired
> to cover.
>
> For example, the Mayor of Philly is going to be at a building dedication, but
> have been declined credentials because the paper I shoot for is not covering
> it. How would I get a pass so that I may shoot the event and try to sell it to
> some papers that may have interest but were not present.
>
> I am looking for an official pass, please do not tell me IFPO, I can make my
> own pass on my computer that would garner the same amount of respect!
>
> Mike Lynch
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] off topic - more on Value Added Tax
Be very careful! This has been discussed at length recently on one
of the pro photography lists. Depends on the state, but in some and
under some interpretations, if you bill the client for film and
processing and charge them sales tax, the negatives belong to them,
not to you! Copyright remains yours, but if you don't own the
negatives and the owner demands them, I don't see how you can refuse
to turn them over. Enforcing copyright then would be pretty tough.
Bob
From: Todd & Sharon Peach [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rental cost for lenses?
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999
Tim Wall wrote:
> I have heard several folks suggest renting a particular lens (or body)
> to check it out before you would actually buy that model of lens or body
> (particularly if it were an expensive model). I think this is a good
> idea but I have no clue how much I should expect to pay for such a
> rental.
>
> Specifically, I am interested in trying out the Nikon 80-200/f2.8 AF
> EDIF (not the AF-S) and the 105/f2 AF DC (or perhaps the 135/f2 AF DC,
> not sure which would be better for portraits). I think about a week
> would be sufficient. Does any one have any idea of how much I should
> expect to spend for such rentals? (Think the 80-200 retails for around
> $800US, the 105 for around $800, and the 135 for around $950, if that is
> any help).
Well, I imagine it varies with what 'market' you live in. In Seattle,
Glazer's rents that gear:
http://www.glazerscamera.com/welcome.htm
They rent any of the 3 lenses you asked about for $20 / day. "weekends
are 1x daily rate; week is 4x daily rate, and the month is 3x weekly
rate." So, $80 / week.
-Todd--
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington
[email protected]
http://home1.gte.net/tpeach/NoPlaceLikeHome.htm
Manual Focus Nikon List: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/NikonMF
From: [email protected] (David Bedno)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rental cost for lenses?
Date: 11 Jul 1999
....
Well, I just so happen to have a copy of the Keeble & Shuchat (one of the
best/professional camera stores in the SF Bay area) rental brochures on hand.
Their price for the 80-200/f2.8 AF is $25/day. They don't list either the
105/f2 or the 135/f2. The 180/f2.8 is $15/day. Prices range from $12 to
$15/day, with jumps to $25 and $50 (for the AF 300/f2.8).
They do mention special prices for weekend, weekly or monthly rentals.
They even do out of town rentals.
Their web site is at www.kspphoto.com.
--
David Bedno
[email protected]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] RE: Why we need high end camera? Wrong question.
At 05:51 AM 8/13/1999 , Zeljko Kardum wrote:
>Professional photographers that usually don't pay for a new equipment
>(photojournalist and sport photographers associate with their agencies)
>will want the best and fastest equipment on the market. Just to raise their
>successfulness ratio to get right picture in the right moment.
Excuse me? Where in the world did you pick up this piece of wrong
information? It is totally wrong to say that "professional photographers...
usually don't pay for... [their equipment]"
MOST professional photographers DO pay for their own equipment. Often it is
a job requirement (even for a salaried job) that they not only provide
their own equipment, but also provide their own cars. It is only at the
highest levels of news photography (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.)
that the organization routinely provides equipment and transportation for
the photographer.
And of course since the majority of professional photographers are
self-employed, they de facto pay for and provide their own equipment. It is
the rare photographer who is lucky enough to have someone else provide/pay
for his/her equipment.
Many news photographers (in the United States at least) work for extremely
low pay, and produce award-winning work with old "amateur" equipment,
including "consumer-grade" lenses. For every Sports Illustrated shooter
using company-provided Nikon F5s and Canon 1ns with big glass, there are
scores of small-town newspaper photographers struggling to survive and
hoping their personally owned, old, worn, un-reimbursed cameras will last
another day, another assignment.
There are very few stars in photography any more who can command clients at
will; there are thousands more predatory clients who abuse photographers.
It is simply wrong and misleading to blithely assume "professional
photographers" always can afford to buy, and do buy, the "latest and
greatest."
- --
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Wildlife photography -- can you make a living??
Date: 25 Jul 1999
>I am getting out of the wildlife photography business to pursue journalism
Yes, there are too many wildlife photogs, and the market is getting
saturated.
Peter Burian
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Polaroid backs for SQAi
Stock agencies won't accept 645 because of the filing requirements. They
readily accept 35mm, indeed that's the format most frequently used for stock,
and they will file 6x6 and usually 4x5. They don't want to add another
format to the files beyond these three.
If you'll look through agency listings in a book such as "Photographer's
Market", you'll find that very few agencies list 6x4.5 as an acceptable
format.
Kim Karpeles
Life Through the Lens
Deerfield, IL
From: David Hay Jones [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Wildlife photography -- can you make a living??
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999
[email protected] (Diablo Cat) wrote:
> You got it. That's what I am trying to do. I enjoy being out and
> taking photographs. It would be cool if my photographs paid for
> themselves, but I doubt it.
Wildlife photography as a business is as much about your ability to
market and sell your images as it is about the quality of those images.
If you're a dreadful salesperson, you either need a good agency or
someone doing the selling for you. Then there's archiving. I know
photographers who take very good images but their offices are so
badly organised they don't know where to find a slide when a request
comes in. Good business and sales skills are more than half the battle
if you wish to makea living from your pics. The bulk of my living comes
from framed limited edition prints. Stock is about 20% of sales.
DHJ
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Price for use of photo?
Date: 21 Aug 1999
>For general guidelines of what the market will bear, PLEASE support Cradoc
>Bagshaw
Keith: Yes, the Cradoc pricing system is great as a starting point.
Pricing is
fairly high and IF you can get a buyer to pay that, super.
Problem is, your competitors will undercut you.
The market determines price in stock photos, cars, toasters, art, etc.
And the
stock photo market is incredibly competitive.
But the Cradoc disc is a great place to learn a lot more and get a feel for
what images should bring. Should. At least a good starting point in
negotiations.
Peter Burian
rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
From: "Dan Smith, Photographer" [email protected]
[1] Re: Pricing Guidlines?
Date: Tue Oct 26 1999
full ownership, a total buyout, or "Work for Hire" if they present you with
a contract as such, should be charged as if you were selling them the images
for all uses you could possible create from the chromes. That, plus your
lost stock for a lifetime. $5-8 thousand isn't a bad start for a general
image and if it is one that has taken a lot of time and talent and/or will
be used for a solid ad campaign, double it or more.
> I am in need of general pricing info for a large format shoot. This
> will be a table top product shot for a full page ad in a nationwide
> technical magazine. While having shot large format for sometime, I
> have no experience on where to price my services and resulting images
> for such a project. The real stickler is that the client wants to pay
> for full ownership (use) of the final image.
>
> Any suggestions or pointers on where to find suggested or going rates?
> And of course, I need this ASAP!
>
> Thanks
> Greg
[Ed. note: possible interest in new service?]
rec.photo.technique.art
From: Roger Smith [email protected]
[1] How to promote your work...
Date: Wed Oct 27 1999
Having been a "stock-image" photographer for 30 years I know how hard
and costly it is to get news of your latest pictures to editors/buyers.
I am starting a new monthly publication, just for that, if you would
like to know more, please contact [email protected] or
visit my website www.bay-business.com/photoimagenews
Happy shooting!
[Ed. note: Peter Burian is a noted photographer and editor of several
nature photography magazines, including a soon to be setup online e-zine]
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Re: The skinny on "nature" mags
Date: Fri Dec 31 11:46:07 CST 1999
Kristen:
Thanks for your kind comments on the National Geographic Photography Field
Guide book.
My primary advice to photo enthusiasts: Don't give up your day job. Some
75% of stock photographers do it on a part time basis. Except those who
are doing it as a new career after retirement.
The field is super saturated; competition is fierce.
Many people who work full time shoot at 6 to 9am on a Saturday and Sunday
while their families sleep.
Kind regards,
Peter Burian
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Re: Pro vs. Amateur Photographers?
Date: Mon Jan 24 20:44:18 CST 2000
This is an interesting discussion (amateur quality work). Some of us will try
to be politically correct while others will not.
I think the following is more apt.
A pro should be able to consistently produce commercially viable images. Not
one occasionally, but at least a dozen every week. Or maybe a hundred.
A photo enthusiast may not even strive to make commercial images. That alone
may keep him from making sales - but he may find photography more personally
satisfying.
And he will occasionally come up with a pro caliber image. You should see
some of the superb images in some major photo contests (pros not allowed
to enter.)
>"Amateur" is not a work quality - it is an employment status. I know
>quite few amateur photographers whose work would embarass many, many
>pros right out of the profession
Bob, I don't disagree but I think the difference between commercially viable
work and work for one's own pleasure exists too. This is one other thing that
differentiates the pro from the amateur - the root of that word is "love"
(ama)
AND, pros 1. shoot 100x more images 2. are far more critical of their own
work
(large trash cans) 3. Have the time to shoot 1000 rolls per year, etc.
Peter Burian, Editor
www.wildlight.com
From panoramic Photography List:
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: photography contracts
In the UK the Association of Photographers produce a brilliant book called
'Beyond the Lens' - check out their website.
From: "Sandy Nachman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Printed Materials
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000
I have been looking for an economical way to promote my photography
business here in Florida. And I was looking around at getting business
cards and postcards printed as a way to do that with direct mail. When I
searched around for the best price, I was amazed how much people were
charging for this. I wanted full color business cards and postcards.
And everyone wanted a lot of money for their products. Except for one!
I was so amazed about this company in regards, not only in respect to
printing, but customer service as well. I found a company called "Global
Xpress Printing", through their website and figured I would give them a
try. Their prices were so much cheaper than anyone elses and they even
offered more quantities. I figured I would give them a try and was very
impressed with the product I received. They are offering 2,500 full color
business cards (2 sided) for $120 (professionally printed, not on photo
paper). And 5,000 Full Color Postcards for $300. An Amazing price. I
was so impressed with them, I want to pass this on to my other fellow
photographers, and hopefully this would save you money and you will
definitely get a great product. I know I did.
If you are interested, their website is located at:
www.globalxpress.net -- They are trying to specialize in the photography
industry, and they are over half the price of Marathon Press.
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
From: D&C [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pro vs. Amateur Photographers?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Hi
Yes..a great subject for argument!!! I worked in a
professional lab for 8 years and I can tell you there is a
big difference between pro and amateur.......but maybe not
how you think!!!
Pro work is produced for their livlihood, their bread and
butter and quite often we would spend extra time on their
work trying to salvage it, meet deadlines or pamper them!!!
I say that in all seriousness, please don't take offence.
The lab is the place a photographer will blame well before
they will praise, sad but true.
The profession of photographer is in no way "Glamour" except
maybe if you're Helmut Newton, and I am sure he had his
hungry moments. It is a cut-throat business and the amount
of input required to succeed is enormous, I have seen so
many talented people go by the wayside simply because of the
competition. I would definitely think twice before
attempting to go professional.
Try doing a diploma or certificate course in photography and
that will give you a small idea of the pressures involved.
Multiply that by the "making money to live" factor and
creativity is no longer on the top of your priority list,
paying the rent is.
Photography is an expression, an art-form, but as soon as
the mighty dollar is involved it introduces the one thing
that is killing good photography, lack of quality for speed.
I used to print from glass plate negatives on occasion and
the tones were spectacular, a rare joy to print from (even
on todays resin coated,multigrade papers). We sacrificed
that sort of quality for speed because the "industry"
demanded it. A pity.
Anyway, I have gone off on a tangent and so should really
stop!!! :-)
Regards to you all
D
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Date: 25 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Pro vs. Amateur??
>Me3too. The only protracted shooting expedition I've been on was a trip to
>Africa where I shot nearly 40 rolls of 36 exp.
Eric: Only 40 rolls? How protracted was this trip? I know pros who take 10
rolls of film per day of shooting in Africa. And that is the minimum.
21 days = 210 rolls, at least.
My friend Dr. Ellen Rudolph (stock shooter) was in South Africa some time
ago. I'll ask her how much film she shot.
National Geographic photogs average 100 rolls per week. Except the really
prolific guys who do a lot more. (Not necessarily the wildlife photogs,
however.)
Peter Burian, Editor
www.wildlight.com
From: David Hay Jones [email protected]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Pro vs. Amateur??
....
I don't thin 2500 rolls per year is a huge amount. At the moment I'm
working on a book commission where the requirement from the editors is
a submission of 600 transparencies in order to publish 55 photographs.
Imagine how many rolls you have to shoot to get 600 wilderness images
you'd want to show a picture editor.
David
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000
From: Logan McMinn [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: How to claim phot sales on taxes?
Depends on how much you made. You could just claim the money you got from
the sales as miscellaneous income, but if it gets to be more than a few
hundred dollars, it might be better to set yourself up as a business.
You can then deduct the expenses you incurred to provide the pictures
(film, paper, chemistry, gas, office supplies, postage, lab fees, etc. and
you can depreciate your equipment. You can also deduct interest payments
on loans to the business. You have to keep good records, and be able to
prove that your expenses were business, not hobby related, so if you will
have to keep your photo hobby and your photo business expenses separated
cleanly and clearly, or stop taking photos as a hobby entirely. I
wouldn't try to set this up without the help of an accountant. He or she
can help you tremendously, especially advising you as to what you can and
can't claim. Once they set you up and show you how to keep your books,
you will do most of the work yourself and the accountant may be needed
only to prepare or review your tax return.
By the way, you may owe sales tax on the photos you sold. Your accountant
can tell you that, too.
MC wrote:
> Okay this may seem like an odd question here, but I am sure someone is or
> has been in the same boat.
>
> Photography is a hobby of mine, one that I love and that I think I am fairly
> good at (or fairly lucky at). Well My mother in law talked me into entering
> some art shows/sales and I made a few bucks this year. I need to report the
> income to the IRS but I was wondering if I should report it as though I had
> a business or simply misc income.
>
> If I am going to write it off as a home based business can I deduct the cost
> of the new camera I baught this year? Do I need to be getting some sort of
> license to sell at art shows? I am not tryin to make a ton of money but a
> little here and there would be nice. Basically I am trying to avoid getting
> in trouble with the IRS and all the others.
>
> What advice can anyone offer me? I am using Turbo-Tax to prepare my taxes
> and it seems easy enough to say that I am self employed and make a simple
> deduction? Am I simply that clueless?
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (RockSeaEnt)
[1] Photo & Custom Decals
Date: Sat Feb 12 2000
We will make decals from your photos or computer artwork.
Check it out at:
http://homestead.juno.com/decalstore/decals.html
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000
From: "Photo Guy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Can I write off photo equipment on taxes?
As I understand it (in the USA anyway) you would have to be trying to
start a business using the camera gear. Then you could write off up to
15K/year and depreciate anything over that. The problem is proving to the
IRS that you are a business. If you have no income from it (1099misc or
cash income) you won't get away with it for long. Also, you will need to
show a profit after a few years or they may decide your business is really
a hobby and want the refunded taxes back.
If you or your spouse already has a business, find a way to add the photo
gear to that business. For example, if your spouse has a business that
rebuilds old cars, the photo gear could be used to document and advertise
that business and would then be deductible to that business.
If you or your spouse doesn't already have a business, start one that
sells your photos at craft fairs or become a sports team photographer.
Just figure out a way to make a little profit down the road. I think it
helps the IRS believe you if you get a business license, have customers,
and run an advert now and then.
A couple of things to watch for:
Equipment you write off should be reported as income when sold.
Home business, while a great tax shelter, can be a big red flag to the IRS
bull.
Since I'm Photo Guy not Tax Guy you might want to check with somebody that
knows what they're talking about.
>Does anyone know how to go about writing off photo expenses (equipment, film,
>processing, travel. . .et al) against the income from my day job? I'm not
>currently making money from shooting (hell, I may never), but I'm trying to
>figure out a way to defer the cost of all the ED glass and the like. Does one
>need to get a lisence (sic?) and register with the state as a small company?
>This one's been perplexing me. Help. . . thanks for any ideas,
>Dave
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Can I write off photo equipment on taxes?
If you can, keep good written records.
How many miles are used to get to a photo shoot. The date.
(Miles to/from your job during the day are not the same to the IRS.)
Keep a spreadsheet record of how many rolls go against what job,
what sold, **you may need a sales tax license from your state** so
you can collect sales tax on the photos you manage to market. (The
sales tax license will help prove to the IRS that you are not a hobby
shooter, but in the business to make $$$'s.) Same token, you may not
have to pay sales tax on film and processing that will be used to
resell...
A simple listing of your business phone in the Yellow Pages directory
is also recommended. And if you have an answering machine, have it
set up to answer as your business phone. (If you want to test the
IRS, i.e., your wife has a day care center at home, let the machine
answer 'Joan's Day Care' and not John's photo biz: but beware of the
penalties for back taxes if they levy them upon you.)
This is from a photographer, not a tax expert: you may need an
accountant or bookkeeper...
....
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] So you want to work for National Geographic
>(Snip)
> You spend half you professional life away from home.
> You contract weird and wonderful diseases.
> You fight for contracts and copyright with everyone who is trying to rip
> you off.
>
> I, personally, have had malaria,dysentery and dengue Fever.
> I've been robbed by corrupt soldiers (and robbed by editors)
> Lost track of how many times I've had a gun held to my head.
> Watched colleague get beaten to a pulp and not been able to do a damn thing
> about it.
> Gotten drunk with Serbian soldiers just to make "friends".
> Been shot at in Sarajevo.
> Left stranded on the side of the road in Zaire.
> Had my Domke camera bag stolen by a 1000lb Harp seal.
> Had a led truncheon inserted between the 10th and 11th vertebrae by East
> German riot police... which I still feel to this day.
> Did I mention the tear gas and pepper spray? ...nasty stuff.
> Gotten a lung infection for burning toxic building materials.
> Been TOTALLY lost in north west Rwanda at night.
> Bribed some unknown guerilla force in Central Africa to get through a
> border crossing... still not sure which side he was on, but he had the gun
> and controlled that stretch of road so...
>
> ..(Snip)
> Greg Locke (Snip)
That's one heck of a list Greg! Better than any resume I ever saw! All I
ever got was death threats from angry boyfriends!!
Mark :-) Rabiner
Was this M's or R's?!!
From: [email protected] (Mr 645)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF for billboards?
Date: 20 Feb 2000
For billboards the real key is a good scan. Saying that, most scanner
operators scanning for billboards really don't like working with smaller
than 6x7 format. I normally shoot 645 but I rented an RB for a billboard
shoot. On the billboard it looked perfect. The same shot printed smaller
on the side of a bus I felt was soft, but that's because it can be viewed
much closer. The client was happy and the advertising company that
printed the bus stickers felt it was fine, typical for this type of job.
Jon
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: Don Ricardo [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Tips on Photography
Here's some tips, the wit and wisdom of a professional photographer!
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=407802940&CONTEXT=947464679.831586319&hitnum=13
82
I want to become a professional photographer myself some day and would
appreciate the comments of real professional photographers about the
tips at the above link. Is the information that is at the above link
really the way to market myself too?
Thanks in advance for any assistance!
Don Ricardo
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: The skinny on "nature" mags
Gloria Hopkins wrote:
> This is a *touch* insulting. I'm an amateur but learning quickly. I'm certain you
> were once an amateur yourself. Maybe you could give a few of us some slack?? Don't
> want to fight or exchange insults but I just had to speak up on this. Everybody, even
> the pros, have to start somewhere.
Hi Gloria,
Don't take it personally. The term amateur seems to have a variety of
interpretations. Unfortunately, it is often used to impy inferior
workmanship. Another one I've often heard is that unless you make over
50% of your income from photography, you are an amateur. Well, if
that's the case, most of the images on my web site were made when I was
an "amateur". I also know several photographers who are "amateurs", but
produce work equal to, or exceeding many of the top name "pros". It's
just that they prefer to rely on other professions to support
themselves, and pursue photography purely for the love of it (not a bad
approach given the extremely competitive climate in nature photography
these days). It's not that these people are any less talented, or even
any less passionate about their photography, it's just that they are
smart enough to not trade in a high paid, secure job for 16 hour (or
longer) days under all sorts of difficult conditions for the hope of
eeking out an income a small fraction of their current salary. So, if
you're an amateur, by anyone's definition, wear that label proudly.
Continue to do what you love and work on improving your results, even if
you don't make one thin dime doing so.
Kerry
....
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
From: Pat Jerina [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: ok i'm somewhat upset (got some film back)
Hey,.
You have good odds there. In the commercial world, a photographer will go
through oodles of film just to get one shot. Granted we are getting paid
for shooting the film and all expenses are being covered, but that is the
norm in the biz. For my personal work, I hope to get one good shot out of
3-4 rolls of film, 120 that is. Truthfully, one cannot expect to have a
whole roll full of perfect images.
pat jerina photography
http://www.patjerina.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: ok i'm somewhat upset (got some film back)
It depends on your drive for perfection, how much
experimentation, how routine. Your studio portrait guy
expects 8 of ten images to fit into that proof folio. Your
nat geo photog might shoot ten rolls for one image. Ansel
Adams just might consider only 10 of his images were any
good. I heard that Yosef Karsh might only shoot two frames,
one extra just for backup.
"jp (koooba)" wrote:
> OK i got some film back
> 2 rolls b&w (36exp)
>
> In each set only 2-3 pics came out excellent.
> Others were crap.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Photography is a nasty business ?/another long winded
reply
When I was running a high volume family and kids portrait
business, it seemed competitive, there were stories of the
home town photog daubing clear nail polish on some poor
guy's lens, the sales crews were always wary of another
sales crew being in town just before ours so we would try
and guess which town 'they' would head next and skip.
After I burned out and was running a small passport type
shop downtown I joined the local pro association. IT was
astounding how open these folks were, they had weekly
classes in various studios where the owner would show what
they did, how they did it, handed out price lists, talked
about suppliers and anything else I would need to know to
become a 'competitor." Some of these folks were the
country's best, including Dave Peters, Lisa Evans, Paul
Tumason and literally dozens of others, National convention
speaker types.
However, it is better to have a skilled competition out
there than dozens of clueless hacks churning out a poor
quality product and lowering the public's perception of what
photography is about. I was a very clueless hack, perhaps
I'm still a hack but I did learn a few clues. You know,
very little of the stuff I tell you I figured out myself,
most all of it was learned from these programs and demos,
most of them informal, several organized workshops and
'colleges,' as the PPA refers to the weeklong seminars that
are held around the country.
The more you charge, the higher the level of service you
perform, both in your photographic craftsmanship and your
public service, the less competition you have. The guy who
charges six or nine hundred bucks for a wedding has lots of
competition, the artist who averages four five thousand per
wedding, two three thousand per portrait session competes
only with Banff, Aspen, Hawaii, Ferrari, or Tiffany
jewels.
In other words, you are only in competition with your self.
When I was tracking my incoming calls and following up on
who or what they decided, I discovered that most of my lost
business went to higher priced photographers. There are
two price ranges for photo consumers, cheapest and highest,
its the middle that gets lost. I'm trying to explain
something that I have sat through lots of programs and
meetings about, but frankly I have lots of trouble getting
it myself.
one similiar that sticks out. running a photo business is
similar to running a restaurant. what makes you decide to
go to a place, especially if you are out of town? We
consume meals out far more often than we buy portraits or
plan weddings, but the decision making process is very
similar. Suppose its your parents anniversary, what place
do you take them to. next time you visit a different city,
think about it. that's marketing in action. Table clothes
and brass door knobs, (a tip of the ol black hat to a friend
for that reference) don't have a thing to do with how the
chef prepares a meal but tells you much about what to expect
of your dinner.
What is the best possible product that could be delivered,
it doesn't have to be a wall print on canvass with extensive
retouching on the large or medium format negative and set in
a hand carved non mitered gold layered frame? What would it
take to deliver this product you are capable of acheiving?
How would your client know that such thing exists, what
would make them desire to own it?
Don't whine for a second bleating that you couldn't possibly
do that in your dog patch neck of the woods where Velveeta
is sold in the goormay section of the deli. There are
dozens of artists who deliver just that 24x30 in a frame
that costs more than most photogs charge for a whole wedding
package in some god awful nowherevilles. Yakama Washington,
largest chicken ranches, a literal cow town, is the home of
Ken Whitmere who hosts the wall portrait conference. If he
can do it there. I could go on.
You know most all of the battle is in our own heads. Most
of the top guns that I have known, the wedding photogs that
charge more to do a wedding than most of us paid for our
cars didn't start out as photographers, most started in
other professions, when i started it was down sized
aerospace defence contractors, now it's computer engineers.
There is a reason, these folks have spent their adult life
in an environment that expects to pay, or charge
professional rates for their professional services, they
don't blink, swallow hard or otherwise cringe and meekly ask
if a few bucks would be OK. If the accounting firm you
used to work for billed $250 bucks for your time to audit
some auto parts store accounts, then you should have no
problem asking, expecting the partner's daughter or son to
pay that kind of rate for your artist services either.
If your previous experience in the job market was passing
pickles at micky d's then, well you're screwed for life I
think.
There is a small business consultant, did a book called the
enterpenurial myth, that most folks replicate their previous
job experience when going out on their own, just like
children of abusers/alcoholics have a tendency to become
abusive/alcoholics as adults.
portrait and wedding photography has far too many lousy role
models to compare with, look at portrait painters and other
fine arts, they may have their own set of bad examples,
however, as an outsider looking for a different paradyme to
escape the dead end routines of photo marketing, there are
lots of things to be learned.
well, gotta go, I'm out of beer....
pierjes wrote:
> Photography seems to be a very competitive and nasty business nowadays
> in america.
> (especially in newsgroups) ehehehe !
>
> (especially in newsgroups) ehehehe !
>
> I would like to know how professionnal photographers in here cope with
> competition ? Is it a question of pricing AND reputation ( or pricing
> OR reputation ?)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: 40 frames out of 60 rolls, only 5 really that good?
I was reading an issue of Photo Life magazine for an article on
wildlife photography by Daryl Benson. In it he talks about visiting
Churchhill Manitoba to shoot polar bears. He says was was able to only
get 40 good images from over 60 rolls of shot film. He then adds that
only five "could stand on their own withough any digital 'massaging'".
The article contains several lovely photographs such as a polar bear
sitting on the ice with the setting sun behind it. The caption states
that the setting sun was added digitally. In fact the vast majority
of the photos in the article were somehow digitally altered.
I have not shot at Churchill, but can getting publication quality
photos really be that hard?
May, 1999 issue if you want to look it up for yourself.
[Ed. note: Just saw a photographer (in April 2000 Shutterbug
sidebar) note he used 60 to 80 rolls of film a day while
traveling...]
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: "jr" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: 40 frames out of 60 rolls, only 5 really that good?
I've been to Churchill and I have sold photos from my one trip. Maybe even
one sale per 1 roll.
Is it tough? Let us say Chuchill has it own unique difficulties,not the
least of which is light.
But let me poise a question to consider. Say you go to Yellowstone in
September. How many publishable photos would most photographers get out of
60 rolls? Same goes for Katmai in July. I could go on with other
locations but I think you get the point. Publishable photos is determined
by supply and demand in addition to having nice picture. In other word you
must also capture something unique, beyond what the other 300
photographers shot that season.
Jess
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000
From: Gordon Pritchard [email protected]
Subject: How I spent last weekend: Product Photoshoot!
Boy, it's sure a quiet Friday...
...so I thought I'd mention how I spent last weekend.
As the last bit of light slid from the Friday evening sky, I
put the final touches on my setup - I was photographing product
for my employer.
Overhead, I had that home-made diffuse my mother-in-law made
up, supported on the PVC frame I'd glued together. As an
adjustable unit, I'd dropped the leading edge down, so that the
panel was inclined about 30-deg up from horizontal; the idea was
to put most of the light onto the top surface of the product,
with the front face still being "opened up" and clean. A second
little Sunpak flash, about 7 feet away and 1.5 stops down brought
the front face up a bit more, to a level which later showed to be
awesome.
With the white light set up, I moved on to the glitz:
Basically, the product was sitting in the middle of a 3' x
5' piece of 3/8" tempered glass ('way heavy :-( ). Matteblack
paper underneath the product. Home-made sawhorses supported the
glass about 30" off the floor. I was shooting "down" the 5'
length of the glass.
At the end of the glass, a milky-white acrylic panel served
as a diffuser, for the "Corporate Green" light behind; a piece of
black paper kepts the overhead diffuser from hitting/washing out
the colour on the acrylic. (Warning: crude ASCII sketch ahead!!
Use proportional font) The setup was like this:
Flash -> () ___---/
^ ___---/
diffuser-> ___---/
panel ___---/ ------------- <- gobo
|
|
[ ]< | >()
()< [product] |
==============================|
^ ^ ^
| | | ^ ^
front camera glass | |
fill milky green
flash acrylic gel flash
Working quickly, because in my mind's eye the final picture
was taking shape, I metered the various flashes independently,
and made adjustments. For the overhead, and colour lights I was
using Vivitar 283's, with the manually-adjustable VP-1 controls;
I was finding the VP-1's a bit touchy so I was constantly
re-metering after even the tiniest adjustment.
Finally! The setup was ready. At this point, I would have
_killed_ for a Polaroid proof, but without such luxury, well, I
would have to continue on and "shoot blind".
The Royal Gold 100 print-film was tucked into the take-up
spool on my FM2n, and gently advanced a couple of frames. The
back "snicked" closed with a satisfying feel, and the advancing
to frame 1 felt perfect...
Alternating between the FM2n's regular viewfinder, and the
DG-2 magnifier, I carefully composed and focussed the shot. The
85mm f/1.4 lens gave an incredible viewfinder image, and
super-shallow depth-of-field for pin-point focussing. Although
the shots would be made at f/8, I was taking care and gaining
enjoyment from precise placement of the focus.
A final couple of tweaks of the Lee compendium, a check that
all flashes were ready, and...
I was off!!
The rhythm of this shoot was beautiful. My home-made
external batteries for the Vivitars gave them very-quick recycle
times, allowing me to shoot second shots almost as quickly as I
could advance the film and re-check the viewfinder.
Product placement was altered. Products were shot in
singles, pairs, and from the front and back. Bare circuit boards
were removed, and also shot. For different visual appeal, I laid
expanded metal mesh over top of the glass surface (hey, nothing
says "industrial product" like expanded-mesh ;-) ).
I was shooting like a man possessed. Three rolls flew
through my FM2n, which operated flawlessly. Just as the last
shot was fired off, I checked my watch, and with a note of alarm,
saw that it was 9:50pm - the local photofinishing shop was only
open for another 10 minutes!!
Quickly I rushed the films in, just before closing; they'd
be ready for me the next morning.
Although I was eager to see the results, the I was also
tired from the emotional energy that had gone into each "click"
earlier. I hit the hay, and slept a deep and untroubled sleep.
The next morning - I was ecstatic!! The pictures were
great!! Boy oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.... :-)
Monday morning, I delivered the prints, and Pro-CD to the
Marketing Guy. I held my breath as he looked them over. He
picked up his pen, and quietly signed off my invoice for $200 -
this covered my costs, and gave me some $$ for my time and
equipment.
The final words really put a bounce in my step though:
"We'd have paid a pro somewhere around $1600!".
-Gord
--
Gordon Pritchard, P.Eng. VA7GP
White Rock, B.C. Canada
[email protected]
Date: 20 Mar 2000
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: image sales to unknown
Textbook publishers usually have someone who does photo acquisition. Not
the author.
They often list Wants on services such as The Guilfoyle Report and Rohn
Engh's Photosource International.
Fees paid per image are low - $125. is average, perhaps. But they buy
hundreds of images (large publishers buy thousands per year) so they are
a good market for some photogs -- those who can provide many.
Peter Burian
PHOTO LIFE magazine
see also www.photolife.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
From: "A. H. Ongun" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: electronic rights
Try http://www.editorialphoto.com/forms/index.html for sample forms. I
would also suggest the "ASMP Handbook"
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: melinda [email protected]
To: rollie [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000
Subject: [Rollei] OT: electronic rights
> I probably should have phrased my last messages better.
>
> Does anyone out there have or know of a source for a good electronic rights contract form - tailored
> for the web?
>
> Melinda
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
From: "A. H. Ongun" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: electronic rights
The full title is " ASMP : Professional Business Practices in
Photography -- (American Society of Media Photographers)
You can get it at the following link from amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0927629143/qid=954208024/sr=1-1/002-5
970905-7974628.
You can also go to www.sethresnick.com (you'll have to register to have
access), and go to his "Photographers'" section. There are sample forms
and a suggested price guideline for web usage of images.
Hope this helps,
Andy
......
> Thank you.
> That site had a couple of useful points and phrases for inclusion.
> Whats the ASMP Handbook?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000
From: David Hibbeln [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: Billboard Size Prints
Folks, There is an interesting article in this months Digital New York
Magazine. It is about billboard and modern production techniques. They
discuss the use of vinyl and a scrim/mesh type material, house paint inks.
There is also some pictures of the large printers used. Seems the cost of
printing a single billboard size image has dropped to about $2,000 dollars
US. This does not include pre-time etc.
The article is NOT on line. If there is enough interest I will see about
converting it into digital text for the group, please contact me off-list.
The URL for the magazine is http://www.dnymag.com/DNYmag/MA00/
Subscriptions are free if in New York Metro. I think there is a version
for Chicago and LA.
Regards,
David R. Hibbeln
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
From: "A. H. Ongun" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Day Rates
> Any suggestions on day rates? I'm a Photographer who does MF outdoor
> sports Photograhpy, ie snowboarding, climbing and mountainbiking. I
> would like suggestions on rate sheets or suggestions on where to go for
> info.
> thanks
> chezphoto
ASMP (www.asmp.org) has an excellent book out, called "Professional
Business Practices in Photography" that has two chapters "Art of Pricing
and Estimating (Ch. 3) and Negotiating (Ch. 4) that will get you going.
I would recommend the rest of the book as well.
Of course your mileage might vary.
Andy
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Payments and portfolio shoots
Sometimes the professionals in this group forget that there
are students and amateurs here too. And our concepts can be
vastly different, as in shooting a model for payment. As a
professional photographer, I wouldn't hesitate, I know my
craft and can offer the subject not only the best of my
ability, but can give a few pointers, and I don't sell a
bunch of stuff they don't need.
Don't forget, OTOH there is an entire industry built on
sucking all the cash they can out of a few dreams of the
underemployed. If a mother were to escort her child to some
of these so called agencies, not only would her child be
considered a potential find, but mom also has 'commercial'
appeal, sign here please.
If someone is uncertain of their skills, finding a willing
model to pose is an equitable exchange, but often the
understanding of the terms, even in a freebie can cause
stressful relationships, as much as shooting your friends
wedding at their instance.
Head shots and other work has some stiff competition in the
cities, seems every college student is trying to underprice
the others.
The problem is that most potential models are underemployed
teenages/young adults.
I worked for a model mill once. What's weird is that rarely
did I ever see anyone that could actually work in the
industry, either on looks or personality. I am probably
going to step in front of the firing squad now with this
next statement, keep in mind, it is just an observation from
over 15 years ago, however, it seems to me that the desire
to be a model is some manifestation of a cry for help.
People with some self image problems seem to gravitate
towards an occupation that is determined to tell you that
you suck, even the most famous 'super model' has stories of
art directors or agents sneering "nose is too big," "sorry
too fat" whatever right in front of you.
Then I noticed that regular folks like to be photographed
like models, and I'm not talking about that overblown
boudoir glamour make overs, but just doing a couple rolls,
shooting Polaroid's to get the model into the concept. And
'normal' people have normal jobs with credit cards to
actually pay for the results they like. They order a half
dozen of a couple of the best for their family instead of
ordering a dozen different ones to copy someplace else, if
they bother ordering at all, I've seen several 'portfolios'
that consisted of a dozen proof sheets, period.
Leigh Silvester wrote:
> I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, although I can't find it
> directly on deja news (if its there please give me the subject title so
> I can find it). It has certainly been alluded to.
>
> How many of you have ever charged to take pictures for a portfolio for a
> model who has approached you directly or via an agency ? I know some
> would never charge a model and would consider such a move to be evidence
> of a scam.
> Surely some bona fide photographer/agencies charge for such a service if
> only to cover costs ?
> Maybe I am showing some innocence here - but then I will readily confess
> to being ignorant about this aspect of life so educate me. I do this
> stuff for fun but the people I am starting to bump into are doing it for
> real so I want to get onto the right wavelength.
>
> I have done a few freebies for wannabees (they get proofs and I charge
> with a small markup for blow ups - yeah shoot me for being a cheapskate)
> and the possibility of some payment which would essentially cover costs
> has come up - with this money coming from the models as far as I am
> aware. I am happy to do more freebies for particular kinds of looks I am
> after (having seen a recent thread somewhere I am quite keen to shoot an
> Afro-carribean in late afternoon to get a bronzed look) but for routine
> stuff is it a sin to accept payment indirectly from a prospective model
> ?
>
> --
> Leigh Silvester
> http://users.breathemail.net/leigh.silvester/
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Start in professional photography
Rick Berk [email protected] writes
>Ed-
>To answer your question on spec freelancing- basically, you go shoot work
>without a buyer in mind, hoping to sell it after you shoot it. Working as a
>sports photographer, I know many guys who do this and have varying degrees
>of success. One guy I am friendly with makes close to six figures, while
>others are closer to the poverty line. Talent is a factor, but so is the
>ability to sell yourself and your work.
Rick thanks for the info.
Ed, Rick's given you more info than I possibly could (I've not started
yet, just trying to pursuade myself it's a good idea). The only thing
I'd add is that there's lots more to shoot than sport.
In the UK you can buy directories of magazines which use photos,
complete with lists of shots they want, prefered formats, contact
details and frequently advice from the editors. It really is eye-opening
seeing just how many magazines need pictures.
I chose this type of work to start with because it can be done during
weekends (or at least that's my plan), leaving the programming to pay
the rent while I see what happens.
I wish you best in your photography.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
From Bronica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999
From: Bob & Jennifer [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] PRICES ?!?!?!
> Dear List Members,
>
>I guess this would be to the professional photographers in the list..
>
>Would any of you be willing to share your pricing structures with me and
the
>list...
>
>I just started my business in Janurary, didn't really get rolling until
>March.. I've put together and brochure with packages and prices..
>
>This may be the equivalent off asking a woman how old she is, or how much
>she weighs, but to coin a phrase, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"
>
>I'd be interested in Portrait, packages, and individual reprint prices,
>Wedding packages, Wedding albums etc..
>
>I am in South Central KY, so I doubt I will be in competition with any of
>you... If any of you would be more willing to discuss this privately you
>may e-mail me at [email protected] ...
>
>Sincerely
>
>Kevin
Hi,
I tried to get a discussion like this going a few months back, but I found
few people (only one) to show me thiers. However, you will find mine
below.
I have recently started to portrait business but have been a professional
photog for a few years now. The main interest for me is in the black and
white art and that is how I sell myself. I usually do black and white
portraits, with an odd color shot every once in a while. Most of my
photography is also using natural light-studio work seems too formulaic
and static for my taste.
I am interested in seeing what others are doing.
------------------------
Photographer's Fee: $85
* Sitting fee for up to three persons (for groups of 4 or more
please
add $15 per person)
* Two contact sheets of two rolls of film. Additional film is
available at $25 per roll.
* Photographer's transportation within 12 miles of Berkeley Springs,
WV. Please call for information regarding photo shoots outside the 12
mile
range.
Hand-Toned Prints
Hand printed and toned on fiber base archival paper.
1st print each additional
4x5 $49 $25
5x7 $87 $52
8x10 $120 $75
11x14 $159 $123
14x16 $269 $225
16x20 $325 $300
Bob Peak, Jennifer Carpenter-Peak, Dakota & Bali (the Crested Chocolate
Husky)
9 Colonial Village, Berkeley Springs, WV 25411
304-258-7647
See Our Black & White Fine Art Portraits
http://www.intrepid.net/~jenbob/photo.home.html
From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999
From: "Rainey, William" [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [BRONICA] PRICES ?!?!?!
Sounds to me like everyone is adding a "me too" without further info so
they can see what prices others are posting before revealing their own!
;-)
Just so that mine isn't a "me too" post:
Sitting fee: $25-50 depending upon situation (includes one roll
of film)
Additional rolls for above are $25 each
Travel beyond 12 miles is additional 50>/mi for
first 25 miles, then 35>/mi thereafter
Prints:
wallets $7.50 per sheet of 8
4x5 $2.75 (no custom printing)
5x7 $3.75 (minor retouching included)
8x10 $7.50 (minor retouching included)
11x14 $24.95
16x20 $44.95
20x24 $59.95 (largest size I prefer to produce with a 645 format camera)
All prices are subject to change based upon customer's attitude and my
relationship to them (family members and close friends are sometimes cut
deals when appropriate). They are also based upon my current local lab
(approx 1/3 of my price), but since I'm not super happy with their work
lately I may be switching labs which would incur a slight fee increase!
Also, as my customer base builds I'm sure the prices will be raised to at
least 4x my cost instead of the current 3x.
Bill
Modern Images
From Bronica Mailing LIst;
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999
From: "Tran, Karen" [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [BRONICA] PRICES ?!?!?!
Right now I'm charging $500 for all day coverage (180-200 proofs) then I
do a la carte for everything else. I do a 5x7 for $7 and an 8x10 for
either $10 or $12 (I can't remember right now which) that's and example.
But, I'm only JUST starting out. This is why I'd be interested in other's
pricing.
I know that different areas have differences as far as what the market
will bear but it's still nice to know the comparisons.
Karen
:-)
[Ed.note: in case you ever get talked into shooting these
functions...]
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999
From: "Paul Skelcher" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Shooting slide film in school auditorium
Routh wrote
>I want to photograph my children participating in school function i.e
>acting, playing violin, dancing etc.. The lighting will be average school
>auditorium light. Flash is not allowed. I want to use slide film. asking me
>to The pictures do not have to have artistic quality. This is to record for
>posterity. For that reason I would like using slide film. I am thinking of
>using [a] Use Ektachrome 400 & push it 800 ASA. [b] Use Ektachrome p1600
>film [c] If light level permits to use Kodachrome 200 pushed to 500 ASA. I
>would like your opinion. With thanks.
Hi Routh,
I have been through the recitals over the last 8 years with my own
children.
1. Use print film. The lab will color correct, so no need to worry about
using a filter or slow tungsten slide film. Although prints may
fade/color shift, I fail to see a difference between slide film and
negative film with regard posterity.
2. My standard settings with 800asa are 250 at f4. You'll need 250 to
freeze action, even then, still shoot at relatively stationary peaks of
activity. F2.8 if you've got it, so long as DOF doesn't suffer depending
on your lens and distance from the stage, a little overexposure never hurt
print film. When you double check exposure, meter on a medium tone. With
a large range of contrast between lit and unlit areas of the stage, it's
easy to over/underexpose too much.
3. Sitting a few rows back, I find 100-200mm works best for a full frame
shot, with less distracting background. Move closer with a 50mm, say, and
the wider angle will capture more background than you may want. It's
tempting to try for a full stage shot with a wider lens, but you'll have
trouble picking out faces with 35mm film.
4. Go to the dress rehearsals. It's more casual, you can move around, get
some great shots, find the best position for the performance, and know in
advance where your child will appear on the stage. Also, you'll be able
to use flash, but expect redeye and black shadows on the backdrop.
5. A monopod is unobtrusive, easy to use and worth the effort, especially
if you have to drop to 125 with a 200mm lens. In a theatre, I don't
usually use a ballhead but attach with the lens tripod collar. Steady the
pod between your feet and knees, tilt the pod and/or rotate the lens for a
straight horizon. If you're pretty much full frame you may want to shoot
mostly verticals.
6. Take two loaded bodies, color and b&w? When your child is on, shoot
continuously with a full roll. Take a penlight to facilitate reloading in
the dark. Take shots of your child's best friends. Save a roll for any
finale or presentation.
7. I've used Fuji 800, Kodak PJ(photojournaislm low contrast fim-my
favorite)800, and 400b&w film pushed 1 or 2 stops. Try one of the C41 b&w
films that can be developed at your local lab w color processing
equipment, I like Kodak's T400CN. Kodak 1000 print film has terrible
grain, as does Ektachrome 1600 for that matter.
8. Be prepared for anything and have plan B ready. Try to sit on the
aisle seat, be ready for the the people in the row in front to huddle
together or be wearing hats that block your view. Keep exposed/unexposed
film in different pockets. If there's a presentation, don't be afraid to
walk down to the stage for your shot, if need be. All the other parents
will do the same.
9. If you have a computer, consider an HPSmart scanner. I shoot a lot more
film now, have it developed($1.99 per roll), scan, and then have prints
made of the best.
Good luck and have a great time.
Paul
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New Hasselblad backs/meters... Compatible Kiev priced
accessories
Jack A. Zucker [email protected] wrote:
>> You want a $1500.00 portrait system in MF? Get a used Mamiya RB67 with WL
>> finder, a used Mamiya 120 back for it, a used Mamiya 127mm lens, and a
> couple
>> of White Lightning WL5000 monolights, two BLSB light stands, and two 42D
>> Soffstar diffusion umbrellas. Forget Kiev.
> I've been looking! I can't find the Camera w/Lens and back for that cheap,
> much less the lighting !
If you feel lucky and do get lucky :), here's $layout:
- Kiev 88 kit (new: body,TTL prizm,Waist-level,80mm,2x120 backs) +
Polaroid
back: $390 (Ebay)
- entry level studio set (2x220WS + 1x150WS +2umbrellas
+1softbox+1barndoor+gel+3lightstands): $600
from Studiomate.
Now, the camera is from Ukraine (exUSSR), monolights are from China and
all plastic. If you get lucky the whole combo will work great and will be
more than adequate for a semi-pro or a carried away amateur. A bit more
luck and the setup will serve for 5+ years.
If you don't get so lucky - you will have to swap the camera (there's a 10
day warranty from this guy @ EBay) and/or will get problems with the
shutter/backs.
Personally, I was recently bitten by a camera bug (it was dormant in my
blood for 10something years) and got Nikon F100. Few weeks later another
bite - and I decided to add medium format to my arsenal.
If I were a pro, I would bite the bullet and go for Hassy or Mamiya, but
as an amateur I would rather pay 10 times less (at least in the short run
:) - and take my chances with K88.
That person @ Ebay has sold a few dozens of K88s and I went through quite
a few feedbacks - not a single mentioning of a problem with Kievs bought
from that particular seller.
So I'm now waiting for the camera to arrive :) and have 2 rolls of 120
slide film ready, along with some Polaroid, to test the camera and the
backs. I will have to do it in a hurry, as I only have 10 days and with
6-8 dayjob it ain't easy. With a Hassy I wouldn't have to go through this
drill, but my checking acct would be $4K lighter.
So you gotta ask yourself one question - do I feel lucky ? Well, do you ,
punk ? :))
Good luck,
Rashid.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: "Dennis Buettner" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: CustomPosterStore.com (Cool New Site)
Thanks for allowing me to post!
Check out our site. It has an original twist. We actually help the
photographer (or artist) make money by selling copies of their photographs
as Custom Posters. (No ripoffs. You keep full copyright)
At http://www.CustomPosterStore.com we break the "photo-cycle" of:
"Snap, Sort, Show, Stow",
and turned it into
"Snap, Sort, Show, Sell!"
We've figured out how to let the photographer make money (all the while
allowing YOU to keep full control of your ever important copyright).
- We scan your best shots and place them in our database.
- Customers will browse our Online Custom Poster Gallery and can buy a
copy of your Custom Poster. (Gallery online May 2000)
- We print and ship the Custom Poster to the customer.
- We mail or create a VISA/MC credit of your artist fee every month. (You
decide your artist fee)
You can also reach us @ http://www.AmateurPhotographer.net and
http://www.ProfessionalPhotographer.net
Member sites of "The Professional and Amateur Photographer Network"
"Take nothing but pictures; leave nothing but footprints. (and we'll turn
those pictures into Custom Posters)"
http://www.CustomPosterStore.com
All the best.
Dennis Buettner
410-647-4836
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999
From: mark meastman**@best.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Sales Tax pertaining to photographers.
n California if the end product you are providing is a tangible thing
(i.e. a print, or a chrome) you must charge sales tax. If you give the
client an electronic image file on a disk, it's considered tangible and
also taxable. However, if the end product you supply is submitted via
email or posted online on a server, it is not taxed becsuse it is not
considered a tangible thing.
OK, great. Now how do I convince the online e-zine to pay the invoice
for the photography when the work isn't considered "tangible" ;^)?
Mark
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Freelancing for beginners...
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999
Hi everyone,
Looking through the newsgroups and email lists, I come accross many
people asking for help on how to get into freelance photography. I
have offered much information and invited people to visit and perhaps
stay with me on my list for freelancers. Perhaps there are
photographers here looking for some answers too. If so, start your
search at this site :
http://members.tripod.co.uk/AAPhoto/
Regards,
Richard
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Professional Photographers Associations
From: [email protected] (Classic Photo)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999
[email protected]
says...
>Just coming back to paid work after 18 years away. What are the reputable
>groups or associations MF and 35mm portrait and sports photographers join?
>How much? What are the benefits? How do I find them??
You might consider PP of A. You can get more information at
http://www.ppa-world.org
Membership is about 300.00 a year for Portrait/Wedding Photographers
due to the indemnity requirement.
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Re: Make a living with photography
Date: Thu Apr 20 2000
There is an article on this topic at http://www.wildlight.com
i.e. giving up your day job for nature photography.
Peter Burian
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: "Pauer" pauer@@spamEcide.ils.net
[1] Re: Make a living with photography
Date: Thu Apr 20 2000
Take a look at what the "BIG" names in nature photography are doing.
Yes, most are selling individual images, and they all seem to do a lot of
stock, which is also not easy to break into and a lot of time consuming
work.
BUT they are also involved in teaching, giving seminars, leading photo
tours, writing books & magazine articles.
Very few make enough rubles from just selling images, to earn a decent
living.
BTW: the teaching/seminar circuit can be quite lucrative once you have an
established name in the business.
If you do decide to get into the business you will find that the "business
end" starts to eat most of your time, and you have to carefully arrange
time schedules so you can actually get out and shoot something.
Other forms of photography like wedding/portrait/corporate/product are
tougher still to break into. Just coming up with the $$ to rent/buy a
decent studio and buy decent high-end equipment so you can be competitive
with the shooters out there is enough to seriously shock most. If this is
your area of interest find an established shooter who is willing to take
you on as an assistant. After a few years of assisting and getting to know
clients and how the business works you can try branching off on your own.
Having said all this, and you still want to try it, go for it! Many do,
and some even succeed at it 8-)..
--
L. & P. Pauer
Silver Wind Studio
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Re: Make a living with photography
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000
Again, the best new book I have found on stock photography is
Sellphotos.com by Rohn Engh.
Concentrates on how to use the Internet in stock photography marketing.
This is a topic that other books do not cover in enough detail. It's 270
pages and there's a ton of great info in it.
Peter Burian
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Rroberts549)
[1] Re: Make a living with photography
Date: Sat Apr 22 2000
these and a bunch of other reason are why I quit Stock, Decor, travel and
other type of photography and went back to the "money".
I am back into Weddings/HS seniors/Famlies/Youth sports etc.. I am doing
better now than I have in over 30yrs of photography.
the last 2yrs since I switched back have been great compared.. Still
highly competitive and tough but I dont spend $1,000 to make $150
anymore..
ron
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Re: Make a living with photography
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000
I mentioned an article about quitting your day job for nature photography.
I got a lot of notes from people who could not find it. Sorry.
Try this http://www.wildlight.com
On the bar at the left of the home page, click on ARCHIVE
Search for day job. The second title that pops up is the article. Nature
Photography - Don't Quit Your Day Job - Yet. (Click on the title)
A lot of interesting insights there from two photogs who have been there.
Peter Burian
From: "Norm" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Database info
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000
Brad,
Boyd Norton, a professional stock and assignment nature photographer has
just such a program. It's called NSCS-Pro. I use it and I recommend it
highly. Check: www.nscspro.com/ The labels are great.
Norm Smith
> I'm looking for a database that will archive information for each slide
> so that looking them up by keywords or a description is possible. I
> realize I could set up a simple one in Acces but I've heard there are
> specific programs already out there. I've also heard that some will
> create labels for the slides. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] camera bags
I have no illusions of quick wealth in the photo industry. Jim Domke
still works as a newspaper photographer and he has probably made more
on bags than any other photographer today. I'm constantly amazed at
the wacky inventions and ideas people send me or tell me about, all
thinking they can quit their day jobs and retire in luxury.
If I was in it for the money I'd switch to a bigger industry, like
maybe computers!
Bob
[Ed.note: take heart, the pros keep shooting to ensure they get
results...]
From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000
From: Dave Huffman [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Recommend a ~28-100 range lens for Maxxum HTsi Plus
Dave Huffman wrote:
> My last Missoula evening I attended a lecture by one of the faculty who
> has spent his working career as a commercial photographer. The best
> photography lecture I've ever attended.
The lecturer presented his favorite portraits -- 20, 50? When he
discussed Newman's justly famous photograph of Stravinsky w/one arm
proped on an open grand piano, he showed the series of maybe 24 photos
taked at that session w/Stravinsky.
What surprised me was that was the ONLY frame with that composition, and
it was about 2/3 of the way through the session.
Today PBS paid tribute to Newman and included Newman discussing why that
portrait works so well -- as if it were the ONLY shot he took at that
session. Now perhaps his artistic genius told him that was THE shot,
but that roll of frames makes me think otherwise... hindsight is
wonderfully creative in itself!
Huff
[Ed. note: Here's an odd service - grins ]
rec.photo.technique.misc
From: [email protected] (QDurham)
[1] Printing on ceramic tiles.
Date: Wed May 17 2000
A local firm is offering an interesting photographic service. They will
print your favorite color photograph on a series of ceramic tiles -- wall
or floor. Nothing like a huge photo mosaic of Yosemite on your shower
wall! Dynamite. Costs about $20 per square foot. How do they do this?
Optical or digital. Particularly, considering the abuse potential, floor
tiles.
Quent
[Ed. note: thanks to Mr. Wratten for sharing these notes...]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000
From: "Mr. Wratten" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Job outlook and salaries for photographers, etc.
An interesting web page from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics on the job
outlook of "photographers and camera operators" in the US through 2008:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos091.htm
According to this page, there are 161,000 photograpers and camera
operators in the US. About half are self-employed. This category
contains both still photographers and motion picture photographers (film
and video). The field is highly competitive and growing slowly. The
highest job growth is expected in wire services, magazines and internet
publications that use digital imaging. The median salary is about
$21,000. Those working in the radio and television industry have the
highest median ($27,000) and those working in the photographic studio
industry have the lowest median ($16,800). According to employment
projections, there will be about 34,000 job openings for photographers and
5,000 job openings for camera operators through 2008, mostly due to
retirements, etc.
Another page on the job outlook for "photographic process workers:"
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos241.htm
Employment in this profession is expected to decline. There are about
63,000 people employed in this category, three-quarters of whom are
machine operators. Average pay for all people in this category is about
$8.00 an hour, but this varies depending on the skill level of the worker.
Finally, there are "prepress workers:"
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos230.htm
Camera operators and other traditional prepress workers are expected to
see job declines, while digital equipment operators are expected to see
job growth. There are about 9,200 camera operators in the US, and they
make around $12 an hour.
FYI, General employment projections by detailed occupation through 2008
(search for "photo" and "camera" to see these occupations):
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ep/ind-occ.matrix/MLRTab2.txt
Just a little data to make the day pass faster.
Jim
[Ed. note: Mr. Grabowski shares a number of useful pointers in his
posting..]
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Thinking of starting a business.
"Edward Spruell"
[email protected] wrote:
>Would appreciate some feedback about getting started in business. Have been
>shooting relatives & friends weddings the past couple of years with Canon
>EOS rebels. Would like to get all the info we can on MF so that we may make
>an informed decision. Tried it on 35MM newsgroup, got mostly negative
>feedback. A lot of people there suggested we go to MF for shooting weddings,
>portraits, etc. As you probably know by now we know very little about MF.
>Any info (websites, etc.) would be helpful. What brands or models, new or
>used? I know these are awfully vague questions at this point, but we need
>to start somewhere and this seems like the place to do it. I'd sure feel
>silly if I am the first one to ask these kinds of questions. I am sure you
>will need to know more of what we do now and what we plan to do, so ask
>away, and I will do my best to answer in a fairly intelligent manner. Please
>keep in mind we will be working in a small Midwestern US rural area, so
>chances are we will not be competing in any way with any of you. Remember
>good photographers are made, not born.
>Thanks in advance,
>Ed
Ed,
First off you have a right to go into a business anywhere you want in
a free society , whether you make it or not is another matter but you
will just have to work with it. I don't really see the point of the
medium format decision having much effect on the going into business
decision but may be we can sort through that too.
Going into the wedding and or portrait business is about putting your
ducks in a row. You need to go to the town or city hall and pull a
simple permit to be in business( $10 around here for 4 years), open a
bank account or designate an existing one ( in the beginning)
specifically to that business and make all transactions through that
account. You need to keep a ledger and start advertising. You need a
good tax person or service for up front advice to learn the cut off
point regarding how to claim the taxes involved. Don't forget business
cards as well and don't forget to start rubbing elbows with the pros
around town , they can actually help you out. I suggest some form of
insurance if only for liability and personal harm at first.
Once you go through this process you can think about equipment but
remember that many very good and very prominant wedding shooters use
35mm. I don't think you need to move to medium format to establish
yourself, if you choose to anyway,run all the expenses through that
account and keep the ledger up ( you will be glad you did if an audit
should occur and at tax time in general). Medium format is a good
format for weddings and portraits it may well be what you want but it
is not going to determine if you are in business or not and before you
make the move into the new format you really should establish the
formal business so as to write this off as a first year business
expense and have the paper trail to prove it. First year expenses are
100% write off, they come off the top of your income , so get at that
establishing yourself as a legal business !
You should know that going into the photography business is no easy
matter and the money is very slow to show itself. If you simply enjoy
shooting , this could strain that relationship between you and the
enjoyment, if you are looking to start a small business there has to
be better and more profitable options. Still , many of us do it non
the less , photography and business jell for us or we just keep
hacking at it . For every legitimate guy or gal shooting with permits
and official parts of the busines in place there are probably ten
hacks reaping profit illegally and undermining the photographic world.
By coming here and asking questions I would assume you are not one of
the latter examples.
This slightly outlines what you need to do, this also assumes you have
skill but non the less you need to improve yourself. In the world of
wedding and portrait photography and to those that are dedicated to
the field, be that even on a part time basis or full blown large
studio, ongoing improvement never ends. We study what the real
prominant shooters do, we emulate old and new styles , we read and
take in seminars. Improvement is ever on going and never at the back
of our minds. There comes a time when you realize your work is good,
that it is very acceptable work and liked by many , still you pull the
images appart and look to improve them. Wedding photography, like it
or not is about getting along with women, because the wedding is put
together and run by the woman in the families. It's about making the
best image out of common people , it's about the coverage of an
astronomical event in a few peoples lives, it's about charming or just
plain getting along with these people and can be about helping them
run their own show that day. It's also about offering a service and
yet it can be a very exhaustive effort that they try to stiff you on,
so get the money up front, at least the operating money.
You will need contacts in the pro world, reception halls and floral
shops, limo services . You will need a decent portfolio. After you get
done contemplating all this and you still want to move on it , I wish
you the best of luck in all sincerity, because you might just be
dedicated enough to pull it off !
Regards,
David Grabowski
From Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000
From: Mark Cassino [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT: Mountain Light (was Re: New Pentax !
you wrote:
> From my perspective it often seems like there's a real herd instinct at
> work in American landscape and wildlife photography. One or two
> photographers, such as Adams and Porter, do something different and new,
> and for the rest of time thousands and thousands of other photographers
> go out, and do more or less exactly the same thing, year after year in
> the same places.
In a word, it's commercialism.
All too often the success or failure of a photographer is determined by
their ability to sell their images, and the formula for making sales is to
create images that conform to the popular style as determined by editors
and other gatekeepers. So when everyone is trying to make images that
look
like some preconceived "standard", they naturally produce images that look
all the same.
The really dismal aspect of this is that many people are steered away from
the creative aspects of photography and devote their energies to trying to
duplicate someone else's concept of what's good. So instead of exploring
different styles and subjects, energies are devoted to re-creating the
images that have already been shot, because that's what
sells. Ultimately,
any ability to appreciate aesthetics is lost. For example, I like to
include big sections of open space in images, and invariably get feedback
that 1) the subject should take up thus-and-such percent of the frame, or
2) that open space is great because you could sell it and the editor could
put writing there. Explain that the space is there to contrast the
subject
to the vast indifference of the universe, and you get blank stares.
- MCC
-----
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[email protected]
-----
Bird, Garden, and Insect Photos:
http://www.net-link.net/~cassino
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000
From: Jonathan Castner [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Ratio of rolls shot to keepers
The comment that the better you get as a photographer, the more
discriminating as to your images quality, is right on. It also depends a
lot on what you shoot. Some subjects, like landscape, tend to give you
more time to work the situation and you end up editing more in the camera
and less on the light table. When I do landscape, I often get 2-3 images
that I like per roll. However since I shoot my landscapes like I am using
a view camera, I may have shot all day, worked three dozen scenes and only
used two rolls of film. Now professionally I easily shoot 2500-3000 rolls
of film a year and as for
"knock-me-down-I-love-that-shot-I'm-gonna-put-it-in-my-portfolio" images,
I'd say maybe a dozen per year tops. That comes to .00013%. Now I do get
an image from every assignment that I am at least somewhat happy with so
you could say that ratio is more like 1 per 2-3 rolls. The more you know,
the more you want to see in your work and the less likely that you will be
satisfied with the work that you have done in the past.
Jonathan Castner -Photojournalist
Online folio at: http://www.jonathancastner.com
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000
From: "Phil Considine" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [NIKON] OT: Rate of Keepers
One of the problems you wrestle with is the "keeper". If I can be so bold
as to offer advice on choosing keepers it is be dispassionate - "Think
like an artist, not like a builder". Here you are with what, $2000 to
$20,000 worth of Nikon kit ( or in Alexander's case duplicates of that and
every Leica and Contax made) and you agonise over a .50c slide? Getting
90% good images from a roll is OK but keepers are a different issue. If
Henry Cartier Bresson, or Ansell Adams kept maybe 2000 images and show
only 100 to 200, and those from unimaginable numbers of shots taken over a
lifetime, what is the chance that the slide you have under the loupe is
good enough to keep? Basically vanishingly small.
The difference between great art and great construction is great art may
not always be technically perfect but it generally is arresting. It has
elements of construction but also tells a story in light and colour.
Construction is almost always perfect, but that doesn't mean it is
uniformly good. We live with construction but we appreciate great art.
A keeper is art -pure and simple - if it doesn't jump up and demand
attention - if at the end of the 200 slides you look at in conjunction
don't dim the memory of every detail - its just another attempt.
Don't get discouraged - there was only one Sistine Chapel, one David, one
Luncheon of the Boating Party - yet all those artists created hundreds of
images in their lifetime. Henry and Ansell and all the artists of light
privately would admit that they never achieved perfection, they only got
close on occasion.
Keep getting closer.
Phil
From: [email protected] (DFranz8260)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 13 Jul 2000 13:54:54 GMT
Subject: Re: New Career????
>What is required/involved in doing work for stock agencies or selling my
>pictures as stock photos. How do you go about getting contacts and how do
>you go about getting that first shot at it, so you can prove yourself.
Having been a stock, editorial, assignment photographer and photo tour
leader for 15 years now I will offer some of my opinions.
DO NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB UNTIL
1. You have 40,000 or more excellent marketable slides that are better or
different than anything the agency currently has. * An old but fairly
accurate axiom is that you can expect one dollar of income per photograph
per year from an agency. * Just because you send an agency a thousand
slides that doesn't mean they'll keep a thousand, perhaps 100. You need
to be very prolific.
2. To venture full time into stock photography have at least 3X your
current yearly income in savings. Have all the equipment you will need.
Have as little debt as possible. You will not make money quickly, you
would be lucky to see a nickel from an agency in the 1st year.
3. You have taken some courses in marketing, much more important
than photo skills, and have a sound plan for marketing you own work. You
really need to be able to generate your own clients.
The amount of work involved in running a well orgainized stock operation
is daunting. Will you have help? Can you afford to hire help? You will
probably need to be shooting stock photos 1/3 of the time, the rest of the
time is office work and the rest of your life.
I currently market from my files of 150,000 nature and wildlife slides see
http://www.franzfoto.com. I do assignment work when I'm lucky enough to
land one. I lead tours, write magazine articles, work with number of
clients I've developed over the years and photograph for 8 stock agents
worldwide. If I get lazy for a while and slack off in office it shows up
a few months later with no checks showing up. Your name is forgotten
quickly in this business. You must really love photography to succeed,
its not a job its your life and it can impact the other parts of your
life. You really need support from your family.
Good Luck,
D. Robert Franz
[Ed. note: Mr. Shell is editor of Shutterbug, a noted photoworkshop
instructor, widely published glamour and professional photographer...]
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Shots of Yellowstone
Hey man, if I get one or two keepers out of a 36 exposure roll I feel that
I am doing very damn good. Remember what Ansel Adams said: that if he got
twelve good photos a year he was happy. Don't have unrealistic
expectations about your photography.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Shots of Yellowstone
Most people have not seen a pro photographer at work. They get their
ideas from TV and movies. And maybe from going to a portrait studio
or watching a wedding shooter. Commercial photography is a different
situation, as is shooting for stock. It is not at all uncommon for
a commercial shooter to go through a couple of "bricks" of film in a
shoot, a brick being 20 rolls (standard pro-pack packaging of 35mm
film). Out of those 600+ exposures (omitting a few because the flash
didn't fire!!) only one or two will actually see the light of day.
When shooting for stock in my travels I look for images I think will sell,
and always shoot everything both horizontal and vertical so the client has
a choice. I shoot some tight, and some with lots of wasted space so type
could be set into the image. By the time you do this, and sometimes
bracket, you will have used up a couple of rolls of film just on one shot
idea. Since the cost of repro grade dupes is very high, generally I shoot
"in camera dupes", that is duplicate exposures on everything. Thus one
can go into my files and there are exact duplicates for agencies,
protection against loss, etc.
I'm getting ready right now for a two week European trip and will probably
use at least 100 rolls of film during that trip. I always buy my film in
lots of 100 or more rolls of the same emulsion batch so I can count on it
all working the same. I pre-test, of course.
Bob
[Ed. note: Mr. Shell is a noted glamour/pro photographer, workshop
instructor, editor of Shutterbug, repairperson...]
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Shots of Yellowstone
- ----------
>From: "Ginny" [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [CONTAX] Shots of Yellowstone
>Date: Mon, Jul 17, 2000, 12:02 PM
>
>But, I'm curious and wonder if you could give me an idea how
>many just didn't turn out like you had hoped/expected on a typical roll of
>35mm film? In your case probably not exposure so much as composition not
>perfect, or that you don't thin it will sell after all??
How many just don't turn out right on a typical roll? Sometimes the whole
danged roll!! Some ideas just don't work. Usually the problem is caused
by film not "seeing" a scene as my eyes do. Every film is different, so
you must learn its strengths and weaknesses. Kodachrome, for example,
gives really poor reds when the sky is overcast, but brilliant ones when
the sky is clear. Fuji films tend to be great on greens, less good on some
very pale violets and blues like you find in some flowers. Kodak's new
100VS gives great colors and skin tones in bright light but makes the
model look like a boiled lobster in open shade. And so on. Best to pick
a few films you like and learn what each can and can't do.
However, it can be a very humbling experience to take your finished
product to your stock agency. I hand carried a bunch of pages of slides
to one of my stock agencies once, and sat there while the guy in charge
flipped each page onto a light box. He would go "aaaahh" on a few, and
most were tossed aside with evident disgust! Out of several hundred
carried to them he took about twenty for their files. Since then I have
just mailed them in!!!!
>Also, interesting that you pre-test the batch of film....I wouldn't have
>thought of that, but surely each batch can have a very slight variation, and
>you need to be "spot on" to sell your photos!
Just about all pros do this. Film varies much less from batch to batch
today than it used to, but it still does vary, and you need to know so you
can compensate exposure if necessary. Also some batches are warmer than
others, some cooler. All this applies only to slide films, of course.
Stock is still shot almost entirely on slide films. Digital has only
started to penetrate and some agencies get my submissions on CD now.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Why do pro's shoot so much film?
Mostly it is insurance and habit from earlier days when cameras and film
weren't as reliable as they are today. One of my mentors when I was first
getting serious about photography was a National Geographic staff
photographer. He shot every roll of film twice, essentially, and put into
separate bags. One bag went to the lab and when it was done and checked
the second bag was sent. That way even the worst lab disaster could not
ruin a shoot. I learned to overshoot from him, and don't regret it.
Film is, after all, still the cheapest part of photography. Nowadays my
biggest expense is gas to get to the location!!!
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Why do pro's shoot so much film?
I think you are missing the point, Roger.
A pro shoots a lot of pictures to get as many good ones as possible, but
deciding on the "keepers" is rarely up to him/her. It is up to the art
director and client. One of the great frustrations in the pro's life is
to turn in a lot of really great photos only to find when the final
product comes out that they used one of the ones the photographer liked
least. This is like Murphy's law, the client and/or AD always have a
totally different viewpoint and eye.
A friend sent me some photos last week that he shot for ads for a line of
sun lotion products. They told him up front what they wanted, a nicely
tanned woman's butt in thong bikini ( it was a European ad!) diagonally
across the image with the company's products on the sand next to her. He
sent me some of his favorites and then the one the client picked, and
clearly the client picked the worst of the lot from several aspects.
As a working pro you just learn to live with the frustration. And when
the client rarely does pick one of the photographer's personal favorites,
that's when the printer screws up in doing the seps and the final printed
version is too dark, too light, or off color.
It happens all the time. And you folks looking at the magazine say, "why,
I could do better than that. Where does this guy/gal get off calling
himself a pro??"
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: Simon Stevens [email protected]
Subject: RE: [CONTAX] Why do pro's shoot so much film?
Question: Why do pro's shoot so much film?
Answer: Because they can.
Seriously, which is cheaper. A extra roll to two of tax-deductable or
client-paid-for film? Or a reshoot, at your expense, with an annoyed
client who will probably never call you again? In most cases it has
nothing to do with an inability to do the basics like focus or expose
film correctly. It has everything to do with being a prudent
businessperson.
Simon Stevens
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: "Pat Perez" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Why do pro's shoot so much film?
This reminds me of the motto I've heard adopted by my friends who engage
in commerce doing what others do for joy (writing, music, photography
etc): Ars Gratia Pecunia (art for money's sake).
Absolutely nothing wrong with providing what the customer wants to pay
for, and if it means you can continue to do what you want in your free
time, all the better.
Pat
[Ed. note: a tip from George Kmetz on the pro's most important piece of
gear - the trash bin!! ;-) Thanks! George ;-)]
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From: george kmetz [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Hi Robert,
.....
I read in your site an interesting article on "the crucial missing link in
photography and optics" mentioned that the pros shoot many slides to get
their one shot. I attended a photo seminar years ago by Lenard Lee Rue a
well known wildlife photographer and he stated that his most important
piece of equipment was the "trash bin"!! I'm not a pro but I can relate to
this dilemma. Take care thanks for your help.
Cheers,
George Kmetz
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: $90 for article plus photo--so low
Quoted from another thread by Peter Burian:
$90. for an article plus photo is so low as to be an honorarium. But
that's another topic (whether anyone should work for such low pay and
how it degrades the market.)
OK, let's debate it.
First let me ask how you got started in this business. Schooling? Did
you work through the school of "hard knocks" to reach the level you've
attained today? Or, on the other hand, did you perhaps luck out by
contacts or background into a great job?
I do take offense at this comment. Now I know you've answered questions
for me before, Peter, (questions that show you I am looking at
"pitches" for bigger and better markets) and I appreciate that... but
this is a slam at me since obviously *I* am the one who sold this
package (although coached in the supposedly non-offensive form of
"anyone")
That's why your background comes into question. Most people start at
newspapers and the like and work their way up to better markets. It
would appear either you did not do that or you have a short memory.
So I am curious about you. Others are too, I'm sure. I would wager most
people here are not selling extravagantly priced prints... nor regularly
selling $1,000+-a-pop articles and photos.
As for my background, I work as a lifestyles editor at a twice-a-week
newspaper in a small town, in a great area. My freelance photography and
articles are "on the side," additional work. I'm gaining clips from the
state dailies and regional magazines for my files.
In selling travel articles, such as the package mentioned above, you can
easily sell it to numerous markets with little or no work. That is how
the bucks add up. And it builds a ready audience for work when that
favorite editor moves up to bigger pubs.
Also, other income may be generated from the package itself. When my
photo ran the first time with the afore-mentioned package, I was
contacted about the photo by a newspaper reader. I sold two prints for a
good price. (saving me marketing dollars myself)
Also, an article on a state newspaper website garnered a call from a
national editor to write an article, yes, AT A GOOD FREELANCE WAGE.
(However, now that article is sitting in their offices and I wait. The
story that surfaced was not quite the story they envisioned and I fear
all rights may be reverting back to me within six months. Luck sometimes
plays a huge role in career. I felt very lucky to have this story
assigned. If I had been truly lucky, however, it would have panned out
exactly as they wanted.)
Anyway, those are some ways I approach this. I guess you would get a
good laugh out of me harping to another excellent photographer friend --
who regularly has his work in a national magazine for a not-so-popular
sport -- that "yes, you do need to get paid because giving the shots
away degrades the market... yes, even if you do love doing it and shoot
as a hobby, you need to sell the photography."
I thought I was doing my part to help alleviate a problem; now I am
accused of helping cause it.
This flabbergasts me. These are the prices that are paid in the Midwest
for this type newspaper work ... and most likely in more than the
Midwest. Despite the burgeoning magazine and web content markets, we
can't all write for them.
Would I like to be paid more than that? Sure. I don't have the resources
at this point to chuck my job and pursue freelance writing and
photography full time. So I plug away, enjoy the writing and photography
very much, visit places I might not have otherwise and get extra cash
for doing it (also allowing me to have a part-time business and write
off the equipment and goodies I'd like to buy, as funds allow of course.
Yes, I am making money --a little -- at my side business)
If you would like to see market prices increase to whatever extent you
might have in mind, so people such as myself don't have to take such
"honorarium" jobs, perhaps you could spearhead a national photographer's
union and revolutionize the industry? I would certainly step in line
behind you.
From: [email protected] (Pyrrha x)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: 30 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: $90 for article plus photo--so low
>If you would like to see market prices increase to whatever extent you
>might have in mind, so people such as myself don't have to take such
>"honorarium" jobs, perhaps you could spearhead a national photographer's
>union and revolutionize the industry? I would certainly step in line
>behind you.
Lots of good advice here -
http://www.editorialphoto.com/
Pyrrha
Date: 31 Aug 2000
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: $90 for article plus photo--so low
>First let me ask how you got started in this business. Schooling? Did
>you work through the school of "hard knocks" to reach the level you've
>attained today? Or, on the other hand, did you perhaps luck out by
>contacts or background into a great job?
It's a long story, Liz, but I understand the point you made. Everyone has
to start somewhere.
About 12 years ago, my first illustrated articles were published in the
old OUTDOOR & TRAVEL Photography magazine. They paid $250. Then, a couple
of test reports in Petersen's PHOTOgraphic at $150. each. (Magazines pay
more these days.)
I have never done work for newspapers since they pay less and want too
many rights. But yes, I understand that many others do - and it may be a
good place to start. (In truth, my first published stuff was on
Snapshooting Tips for a little weekly -- small town -- paper at $10.; 14
years ago. I had forgotten that.)
A lot of pro photographers and writers are concerned about part-time folks
selling images and articles for very little money. It really tends to
bring down the amount that newspapers, etc. feel they need to pay.
But yes, I see that there are two sides to this issue.
Cheers!
Peter Burian
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: stan [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: work as nature/wildlife photographer/filmer, how?
Yep you are right!!! I have an advanced degree. I hated what I did. It was
the safe path. I thought "someday, someday". Then I decided to go for it.
I took classes (I live near some major Universities so classes weren't a
problem), took seminars, NEVER trusted the opinion of friends and family
(they are always too easy on you), looked at magazines to see who was
doing what were. Slowly bought equipment (I'm a studio shooter it gets
expensive). Then, with a deep breath I did it. Three years later, I'm just
above water. It damn hard to be a pro shooter these days especially in
nature. I am not a nature shooter. I just love photography nature. I had a
friend who spent 7 years living in a van, before he made any profit. He
worked odd jobs, published in small magazines, gained some popularity,
kissed the right a****, and now has numerous National Geographic shoots
under his belt. Last I talked to him he was living in a house on acreage
outside of Glacier National Park. Go for it man, and watch the cars!!!
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
...
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: work as nature/wildlife photographer/filmer, how?
Rogier Janssen wrote:
Hi Rogier,
Before I begin, just let me say that my intent is not to discourage you
from pursuing your dream, just to give you a somewhat realistic view of
the situation.
> Mind you, I never said I think my pictures are good enough right now. As a
> matter of fact, I just bought my camera in April of this year.
>
> What I was saying is that I liked photography so much that I would like to
> try and get good enough to sell some pictures to make a little extra money.
Herein lies one very major problem. In the beginning, you will not make
money by selling your photos, you will loose money. To become a
successful (financially speaking) nature photographer takes a huge
investment in both time and money. I know many very talented people who
have tried it, but after loosing money year after year, they finally
gave up. If it costs more to produce and sell your product than what
you are paid, you are not making money.
Assuming you have, or are capable of developing the talent necessary to
produce images that will sell (not a small assumption, but the first
step). You then have the cost of producing your images. This not only
includes the obvious costs of camera equipment, film and processing, but
also overhead like travel costs and the cost of running a business (all
the office supplies and equipment needed to label, file, store, submit
and track your images and to invoice clients when they want to license
them). These costs may seem trivial, but they all add up, and very
quickly. And don't forget insurance (medical, liability, equipment, etc.
- might be lower in your country, but a major expense here in the
states).
Then if you are talented enough to produce a nice file of saleable
images and fortunate enough to have them in front of the right buyer at
the right time, the lead time from snapping the shutter to getting a
check in the mail can be very long - several years in many cases. For
example, from the time you take a picture, submit it to a calendar
publisher for the first time, get it published and get your check in the
mail is typically about two - three years. Most calendar publishers
work about two years in advance. They spend about a year selecting
images and getting the calendars printed, and then they try to get them
in the stores about six months before the start of the new calendar
year. It is only then, that you will receive payment. The images that
I have shot this spring and summer will be submitted for 2003 calendars
starting later this year through next spring.
So, what this means is that you have a lot of up front expenses to
produce your product (not to mention living expenses in the mean time)
and a very long lead time before you will see any steady income stream,
let alone a profit.
It's not easy and requires a lot of talent, and even more so hard work
and perserverance. I'm not syaing you lack any of these qualities, I
don't know - only you can answer that. I'm just trying to let you know
what the obstacles are. I also think this is why you have received so
many replies to stay in school and get a degree. It helps tremendously
if you have some other source of income to tide you over while you build
up your image files and establish working relationships with several
paying clients. A college education and a good paying steady job with
good benefits is a big help (or a trust fund, or a spouse with a good
job, etc.). I don't think the people advising you to stay in school
were being mean and trampling your dreams. I believe since they've been
through it and know how tough it is, they actually had your best
interests in mind. It might not be what you wanted to hear, but the
advice they gave will serve you well in the long run.
I don't know anyone who picked up a camera and immediately started
making a decent living as a nature photographer. Most came from
different career fields and took a long time to establish themselves.
Even if you look at the top names in nature photography, very few rely
soley on stock sales of nature images to make a living. Most also teach
workshops, endorse products, write columns for magazines, sell prints,
etc. There's only so much money to be made in nature photography and if
you do pursue it, you will not just be up against these hard working,
talented, established folks with huge stock files, but the large stock
agencies as well (some of whom are huge multi-national corporations).
I don't mean to be full of "gloom and doom" (as George put it), but I do
wish to help you establish realistic expectations. In spite of what I
wrote above, it is possible to eek out a modest living in this business,
it takes some talent, but most of all hard work and time. Even if you
have the work ethic, you will need some other source of income to live
off of until your photography starts paying for itself and eventually
puts bread on your table and a roof over your head. I hope you do go
for it and it all works out and you become a rich and famous nature
photographer. If you do, you will be in a very select minority, but
also very happy and fulfilled in your life's work. Best of luck.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: Dennis G [email protected]
Subject: Re: work as nature/wildlife photographer/filmer, how?
I know a lot of professional photographers and I know some talented
photographers. Some times these are different people. Talent and want does
not make a "professional" nature photographer. I would say marketing
skills, type "A" personality, and raw guts to do whatever is necessary, is
the best way to succeed if you want to make nature photography your career
path.
It's like when I did the Southeastern Wildlife Exposition (years ago) in
Charleston, I was with about 7 or 8 other photographers selling prints.
But there must have been 50 or more people come up and talk to me during
the show and say "Oh yea, I'm a professional nature photographer and I am
gonna do this show next year," we photographers that were there said to
ourselves that those people were just talkers. If you are going to do
something, "DO SOMETHING.", and quit telling me you are going to do it.
Those talkers could have been there selling prints right beside me at that
show. But they weren't, we were.
Creativity is not enough. That is why the type "A" personality helps. You
have to do more than knock on doors, You need to bang on them and maybe
even take a few off their hinges.
You do need to be talented and knowledgeable, but it is no way enough of a
skill to be successful. There are many starving nature photographers like
that already in the market place.
Dennis G
...
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000
From: [email protected] (Meghan Noecker)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Thieving clients
"jjs" [email protected] wrote:
>Chris [email protected] wrote in message
>
>> FWIW, when I was entering the photo business, I was taught by two master
>> photographers that if 20% of all clients didn't think that prices were
>> too high, then prices weren't high enough.
>
>A well established photographer I knew said "When you quote a price, double
>it in your mind first. Then grit your teeth and double it again. If the
>client looks faint, then you are right on target." Don't thy this at home
>yourself. Such a stunt is for well recognized professionals only. (Or maybe
>convention photographers.)
I learned the hard way that you can't do this in some markets. I asked
about pricing, got advice from many photographers and finally stated a
price much lower. I almost committed business suicide. Apparently, the
local photographers do not charge for usage in magazines. They only
request that an 8x10 be purchased. You can use it for advertising in
any magazine, any size, however long you want. So when I quoted a
price based on its usuage, the client was dumbfounded. Unfortunately,
most photographers in my area wouldn't even answer my questions. They
were so afraid of competition that they wouldn't even answer
questions. I would rather compete on quality than price, but without
knwing their prices, it is awful hard NOT to undercut. Without a
well-known name, I do have to be conservative.
Meghan
Friesians in the Northwest
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
From: /dev/[email protected] (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: 24 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: work as nature/wildlife photographer/filmer, how?
Rogier Janssen ([email protected]) wrote:
: What I was saying is that I liked photography so much that I would like to
: try and get good enough to sell some pictures to make a little extra money.
:
Come on, get real. You'll most likely never sell "some" pictures and
make money. You have to be selling all the time and reselling things
that have sold before. Photography is expensive. Gear, especially
good gear that a pro needs, is expensive. Getting to a good location
costs money. Film and developing run away with money too. Then you
have to think about where you're going to sell, getting your pictures
in front of the buyers, at your expense, and handling all the rejections.
And when that first sale comes its hardly a drop in the bucket compared
to what you've spent.
That said, it can be done, but you'll be working far harder for a lot
less money than if you got a good job. People who do make their living
as a nature photographers do so because they love the work, are hard-nosed
business men and women, and are workaholics. If that sounds like you,
well, good luck, but if you don't succeed, like probably 95 percent
of the people who try, don't complain to us.
--
Bill Rea, Information Technology Dept., Canterbury University
E-Mail b dot rea at it dot canterbury dot ac dot nz
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Milage - book publishing
....
Jennie and I publish our own books. We have them printed in Hong Kong.
Publishing books yourself is quite easy. And when you sell them, you keep
"all" of the profit, rather than a measley 5%. And if you want to reprint,
you can. If a publisher doesn't want to reprint, they don't have to no
matter how good the book is.
Get Dan Poynters "Self Publishing Manual" which is absolutely the best
self publishing book ever printed. Get it, read it, and follow it word for
word. If you want to print off shore, let me know.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568600631/o/qid=968361883/sr=2-1/002
- -5986582-8556829
Jim
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: pro photog. median wage USA = $20,940 etc. Re: Kiev Camera
kits
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
> Hmm, from my semipro pages http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/semipro.html
> see http://stats.bls.gov/oes/national/oes34023.htm OFficial USGovt
> Labor Dept stats for fulltime photographers (scientific, aerial, PJs etc)
> for 1998 based on 34,023 photographer wage sample:
>
> 10% $12,500
> 25% $15,250
> 50% $20,940
> 75% $30,820
> 90% $43,860
>
> Clearly, if all the photographers you know are making $100,000+, you must
> know a pretty select bunch, say the top 0.5% of professional photographers?
> Or it may be they were just bullsh*tt*ng you, perhaps? ;-) ;-)
>
> Maybe this will help clarify for you why so many photographers buy Kievs,
> since on $20,940 per year (avg) they can't afford $20-35,000 of hasselblad
> gear and eat at the same time. Most of the other hassy owners including
> pros I know can tell you the year they "invested" in each lens body back,
> and many make it a point to buy used gear from their local dentists ;-)
>
> incidentally, the estimates are that over 3 out of 4 hasselblad owners are
> amateurs - the pros mostly can't afford them per above USGovt stats ;-)
>
Excellent post, nice to see the actual stats, they are in line with
what I've seen in the pros I know. Every pro I know, when selecting
gear, makes the availability of rental lenses and equipment a primary
issue in deciding which "expensive" system to buy. Most, if they own
anything exotic like a Hassy at all, bought it used, have at most 2 or 3
lenses they own, and rent any other focal length they need. No one has
an extensive system.
While reliability is an issue (how much depends on what kind of pro
photography you are doing, certainly a PJ needs reliability more than
say a fine art photog), it's the person and their vision/ability that
matters far more than the camera. I have several photographs I purchased
(not inexpensive either, but excellently printed, and well worth what I
paid for them) from Mark Sink, an excellent fine art photog, that deeply
move me and everyone who's seen them. Outstanding, thought provoking
photos that you just have to keep looking at again and again, seeing
something or feeling something new every time. The camera? A Diana.
Proving that the person is more important than the equipment. Something
equipment snobs like fatgas seem to ignore.
Fatgas reminds me of a guy several years ago who, when looking over a
tweaked Mustang I had, sniffed, stuck his nose in the air, and said that
he certainly would ever stoop to driving a Stang, the RX7 turbo was a
much much finer car (at over 2 and a half times the price) and implied I
was obviously a cretin for driving one. Later I noticed him wander
across the parking lot and climb into a rusted out Pinto.
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000
From: Greg Locke [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: What's a photographer worth?
you wrote:
>That hardly seems worth it. Think about all the time it would take someone
>to amass enough good images to be able to make any sort of decent living
>off of their stock photos. $1.00 per image seems hardly worthwhile. That
>would mean that in order to equal my salary at my current job, I would
>have to have at least 60,000 usable images in my stock photography file.
>And, I don't think in 10 years I could even come up with 60,000 stock
>images, and even if I did, after all the time and effort it would have
>taken me to attain all of those images, I would not even break even...
You have missed the point, I'm afraid. You are thinking like an employee.
...now I didn't say you HAD to have 60,000 images to make $60,000.00 per
year. I said it is a general guideline for the industry for a general
broad based stock file.
An armature cannot make a living as a stock photographer.
They just don't have the time, assignments or recourses to produce a
sufficient library... unless it is a specialty subject with some
exclusivity.
Even for a working pro, income from stock sales is only part of his
income.
As I mentioned, I been at this for 20 years and only this past year did I
make more with stock sales then assignment work.
A working pro with good assignments, solid reputation and smart planning
will make about 30% of his income from stock sales after 10 years in the
business.
A photographer with VERY GOOD WORK or of exclusive nature will make this
with a smaller collection.
Half of my stock income comes from less then 100 photos. These sell
repeatedly over many years.
Some are from recent assignments and some are from assignments I shot 15
years ago.
On a good magazine or corporate assignment I could shoot over 200 rolls of
film. That is 7200 frames. Out of that, approx 100 will be salable stock.
Two dozen of these assignments per year and I have a stock file of 2400
images of 24 different subjects or topics. This doesn't include the day
shoots of news, events, personalities, etc which can be valuable stock
also. After 20 years of this I will have a minimum of 48,000 images.
( I actually have approx 75,000 images in my index and it is distributed
through agencies in Canada, the USA and in my own agency)
If that 48,000 images is earning its "$1 per image per year" then that is
an income from stock sales of $48,000.00 per year.
Where I come from that is a decent retirement income.
Of course, I am still a active professional so I am STILL earning my
"regular" income from assignment ... and generating NEW stock images EVERY
TIME I shoot an assignment.
What it comes down to is that being a professional photographer is not a
hobby. It's a business and standard business marketing principles and
business planning are required to succeed.
Unless you are prepared to run that business as a full time venture and
with sound business principles you will not succeed ie: make money.
Greg Locke
St. John's, Newfoundland
[email protected]
PICTUREDESK INTERNATIONAL ...news pictures ONLINE
1-800-340-4970 / http://www.picturedesk.org
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT ? Bob's Book
Somehow I missed David's original post. I'm talking to some publishers
right now about a variety of potential book projects. I co-authored one
book so far which was off the photographic track, and it came out as a
book from a major publisher and as a CD. It was a very discouraging
experience because even though the book was in every Barns & Noble,
Waldenbooks, B. Dalton, Books-a-Million, etc., the publisher has said that
it just didn't sell. So that's why they did a softbound edition after the
hardback, I suppose!!! A lot of time and effort and heart and soul (as
well as a lot of my own money) went into that book, and I am yet to see
one penny of royalty money.
The photo books are from small presses, but at least they do pay their
royalties.
I'm trying not to only deal with publishers whose payment record I can
verify with authors who have worked for them.
Bob
...
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: don't be a smart-ass
....
Beware Doug, when you sell photographs to any "government" agency, they
can do with it what ever they please. Copyright does not effect them. They
own whatever you give them and can scan it, copy it, use it anywhere
anytime without your permission or remuneration to you.
Jim
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Nov 2000
Subject: Re: stats on pros Re: who cares what the pros
use? ("Pro" Unrefined)
The "average" pro apparently declares $21,000 per year as income. But that
is after a ton of tax deductions.
And yes, many news and wedding photogs get equipment from a pool. (Or they
get an equipment allowance monthly - that covers lease payments.) Those
who work for a studio (whether Sears of a commercial studio) do not have
to buy any equipment.
Tax stats never show Gross Income. Esp. self-employed photogs write off
everything, to show minimal net income. That's why they can afford an F5.
It's not what you earn, it's what you get to keep at the end of the year.
My net income is about 50% of my gross, for example. I have more tax
deductions than some people earn in other full-time jobs per year.
Peter Burian
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
From: "Tom Thackrey" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats on pros Re: who cares what the pros
use? ("Pro" Unrefined)
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] (PBurian) wrote:
>
> >The "average" pro apparently declares $21,000 per year as income. But
> >that is
> >after a ton of tax deductions.
>
> But, still. $21k *net* income isn't a lot. That has to pay for food,
> clothing, and shelter. And not much left over for anything else.
I read somewhere that the average actor makes $10K/year (US). Many still
afford nice houses and cars. :-)
The 1999 Advertising Photographers of America survey reports that the
average "sales" reported by the members surveyed was $378,223 with a
median of $243,000 (median is the middle number, half the members reported
more and half less). The average replacement value of their gear was: 35mm
$9,900, 120 $13,250, 4x5 $16,100, digital cameras $8,800.
My point is that the average of $21K says little about any individual. I
know pros that work from home, shoot a lot of events and teams, and
probably net less than $21K. They mostly have old gear and buy used. I
also know guys with spotless drive-in studios, assistants, stylists, and
agents. They own lots of expensive gear-- Sinars with digital backs,
expensive lighting systems, etc. They probably net six figures.
I think it's a mistake to try and characterize any group as large and
diverse as "professional photographers" when you have to include shopping
mall portrait shooters, journalists, product, fashon, industrial, wedding,
sports, and so forth. Except for the fact that they all make money with
cameras there's not that much in common between them.
--
Tom Thackrey
tom at creative-light.com
www.creative-light.com
From Contax mailing list:
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: [CONTAX] Which lens
> From: muchan [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AW: [CONTAX] Which lens
>
> Thus making either your money or fame by 1% of photography. hmmmmm.
You might be surprised to find out that most well known photographers
(at least the ones I know) like to do other things than what they are
best known for. In many cases it is much like an actor who becomes
"type cast" early in their career for playing one sort of role and ends
up only being asked to play that sort of role the rest of their career,
even though something else is of equal or greater importance to them
personally. As an example, I know some commercial photographers who are
best known for flashy color images who really love working in black and
white, but nobody ever asks them for black and white work.
We did an article a while back in Shutterbug in which we took a half
dozen famous photographers and asked them to do a photo for us totally
different from what they were famous for, and we heard this story from
most of them.
Which is not so say that I don't love photographing women, just that
people almost never come to me for anything else.
Bob
From Leica Mailing LIst:
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: an appeal to photographer (was re: tina's print
pricing)
As a fine art photographic print producer, I don't agree with you.
I don't make digital ink prints and if I did, it still would not change my
(and everyone else I know in the business') beliefs. The amount of work
that went into making the first print is, in most cases, substantial. It
may require extensive travel, extensive manipulation, and archival
processes, etc. And I know from experience that if you have a print, say
11x14, matted, framed, and a price of $95 hanging next to an 11x14 print,
matted, framed, and priced at $495, the $495 print will sell ten times
faster than the $95 print. Perceived value plays an important role and the
price often establishes the worth of the artist for a very long time. It
hangs on. It is a mistake for someone who produces good work to begin by
pricing it as if it were a dime store commodity. The stigma will be hard
to shake. And the artist will go broke.
The art buying public is not used to paying a pittance for "good" art.
Whether photo, paint, or other medium. Art priced cheap will be thought of
as a cheap attempt at art. If your work is good, that is if people spend
time looking at it, talking about it, asking questions about it, and
buying it, then it is obviously good art and worth the price.
I charge $2500 for a 48x60 Ciba or LightJet print mounted on 1/2"
Gatorboard, 1.5 mil UV laminate (gloss or matt), and a thin black aluminum
frame. $2000 for a 48x48, $1500 for a 30x40, $1200 for a 24x36, $900 for a
20x24, $700 for a 16x20, $500 for an 11x14, $300 for an 8x10.
And don't forget that unless you sell your art directly, which is not easy
to do, you will be giving up 50% of the sale to the intermediary. It costs
me $700 in raw material costs to produce a 48x60 mounted and framed print.
Add to that the cost in taking the photograph in the first place, the
labor involved in making the ready to sell print, then give up 50% to an
intermediary, doesn't leave much room for profit.
So far, I have only sold my prints direct. But starting later this year, I
will be selling through a Gallery and will raise the prices for gallery
sales.
The difficulty in reproducing the prints for sale has nothing to do with
what it is worth. If I have a local lab make my 24x24 Ciba's, they are $75
each. Or I can make them myself for $10 each. In one case I drive 100
miles round trip, twice. The other case I spend time in my darkroom mixing
chemicals, printing, and drying prints.
Once you actually stop, think, and ferret out the actual cost of material
and labor involved in the original photography, processing, choosing,
manipulating, reproducing, presenting, and selling, you won't be so eager
to sell prints cheap. Cheap art costs the artist money and is a recipe for
the artist to find another line of work.
Jim
Kyle Cassidy wrote:
>there's a great editorial in camera arts this quarter about print pricing,
>something that i feel strongly about as an art buyer and art producer.
>prints, photographic prints, _should_ be priced inexpensively. as the t.v.
>commercial says, "crunch all you want, we'll make more" -- it's ridiculous
>to pay $1,200 for an 11x14 print, even if it is by sally mann. especially
>now with the advent of digital printing where prints can be reliably
>reproduced in quantity without the aid of an expensive darkroom
>technician. i'd much rather have one of my prints in someone's house.
>pricing high is simply creating false rarity. print pricing should be
>based on the difficulty in making the print, and recouping some of your
>photographic investment.
>
>join me in the fight against limited editions. well, me and HCB.
>
>kc
>
>(the editorial makes the point that photographic prints today are based
>on the painting model "this is my work, you're taking it away forever"
>when they should be based on the music model "your buying this CD doesn't
>change my master recording so i can sell it to you cheap" -- it's a good
>article and a good point)
Date: 6 Mar 2001
From: Old Timer:( [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: How to take the next step from Amateur?
>Well, I still want to talk to my friends, but I assume they are going
>to be shots of the ceremony and candids during the reception. There
>will be the obligatory lineup shots, but this certainly isn't going to
>be a big, formal wedding (I would have said no immediately).
First, go read this...
http://www.aljacobs.com/Bridezilla.htm
It was written to be funny, of course. But, there is a lot of truth in
there.
Do NOT try to buy a bunch of new equipment before the wedding. It will
just confuse you and certainly won't improve your photos. Work with the
lens or lenses you have.
You might purchase a decent flash unit and practice with it before the
wedding.
Good luck...you are going to need it!
Grumpy Old Timer:(
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: A Leica ChallengeTO KICK B. D. ;-)
>"B. D. Colen" wrote:
>
>> You can see how you did - pretty poorly for someone with such strong
>> opinions about how given photographs should be taken and what would make
>> them better.
>>
>> Now I know I it's bush of me to get annoyed at the kind of "constructive
>> criticism" you've so freely provided. And I know that when I post photos
>> I ask for feed back. So you are, of course, entitled to your opinions of
>> the photos. BUT - Given your admission of having very little
>> photographic experience, I'd suggest throwing away the books and the art
>> 101 course and getting out and spending 15 hours with a family, or 17
>> hours in a labor/delivery room, or attempting to take photos at a
>> funeral without outraging those whose loved one has died, and then look
>> at your photos and see if they are shot "correctly" by the standards you
>> set here.
>>
>> B. D.
I usually do not respond to an individuals request for a critique. For the
very reason I posted the following and the ire that usually results from
honest critiques. See BD's response above.
Someone does NOT have to be a photographer in order to critique a
photograph, or series of photographs.
I'll bet that most of the photographs purchased (galleries, shows, street
fairs, etc.) are purchased by photography illiterate people. Photographers
think that they can make their own so why buy another photographer's work.
Each individual will either like or dislike a particular photograph. Based
solely upon that individual's likes and dislikes.
The pain and suffering of the photographer, in order to make the
photograph, is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Except, perhaps, to another
photographer over a pint.
Most photographers critique other peoples photographs from a
photographer's point of view. Wrong lens, too grainy, too flat, too
contrasty. They never look at other photographer's photographs, as a
"photograph." They always look at the process .
I have a good friend who has been selling fine art photography to the
public for 25 years (25th anniversary this year.)
http://www.gavrilisphotography.com/
Go have a look...
Every time I go over to his house, I look at his new photographs for
sharpness, which lens is used, which film, everything but the photograph
itself. Then I finally back up and switch out of the photographer mode,
and look at the photograph for it's real purpose. Would I buy it or not.
His clientele is the public at large.
JM2>W
Jim
From Contax Mailing LIst;
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Photographers protest
> From: muchan [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Photographers protest
>
> Isn't it possible, then, to form another organization of stock photography,
> and the "better" professional photographers should sell their stock work
> without lowered price, and if the "quality" is really superior than the
> monopolist, then the monopoly won't function as they intent?
Sorry I didn't have time to address this before leaving last week. Getty
and Bill Gates have been buying up all of the photographic stock agencies.
Traditionally, stock agencies did a 50/50 split with the photographer on
income from image licensing. Under these new owners the agencies are
slashing the photographer's percentage and charging all sorts of fees
against the photographer's income, as well as making sales at considerably
lower prices in the first place. Stock photography was never a way to get
rich, but could provide a decent income to a hard working photographer
with a good eye. Today that is practically impossible.
What can be done? Well one group of photographers is banding together to
form a co-op and be their own stock agency with a 70/30 split in the
photographer's favor. I wish them luck!
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
From: Philippe Tempel [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] OT Photographer's Assistant
I have found out what a good assistant can make. A guy in Texas
charges $150 per day and $90 for a half day:
http://www.turntotexas.com/cgi-bin/production.cfm?id=1115
Ok. Let's roll with this one. Let's assume divine intervention
comes down out of the clouds and guarantees that you will have a
gig at least 5 days a week. So $150 * 20 days/month * 12
months/year is $36,000. That's as good as it gets. How does
anyone starting out as a photographer make a living? They must
either:
a) still live (or be supported by) their parents or come
from a rich family
b) won the lottery or was somehow given enough
money not to worry about making a living
c) is supported by a well to do and very understanding
girlfriend or spouse
d) has another job that is miraculously flexible enough
to allow you to take an assignment at almost any time
I used to know a guy that was a *good* photographer that
lived in what must be the smallest apartment in Manhattan I
have ever seen. It didn't even have its own bathroom. He
shared it with others down the hall. At the time he was happy
to have an assigment with a magazine. To all of you who are
actually making a living from your cameras I salute you. I would
love to know how you actually squeaked by in the early days.
[Ed. note: one shot for every fifty rolls of film?]
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001
From: "Michael E. Berube" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Dilettante or real photographer? (before coffee)
The one element that you didn't mention Matt, is film consumption. I think
it is safe to say that your average NGM photographer burns a LOT more film
on any given assignment than even the most avid amateur photographer. In
addition to great equipment, technical know how and 'the eye' this
probably more than any other factor increases the percentage of 'best of
the best' images available for publication. I read somewhere (and this may
not be true, but sounds right) that the average 11 photo spread in NGM is
culled from something like 500 rolls of film. Add to that hit rate the
fact that they hire great photographers in the first place (with the eye
and technical knowledge) and that they use good equipment, the reasons for
the longevity and popularity of the photography isn't that hard to
understand.
When I was shooting Full time in the USArmy, I'd routinely burn through a
brick of 220 in a day when on assignment. The byword was "Film is cheap."
Comparing the cost of film to the man hours it would take to shoot all day
and NOT get the shots you need. They were right. (It wasn't until I got
out of the service and had to buy my own film/processing again, that I
realised that film wasn't always as cheap as it seemed when the taxpayer
was footing the bill!) :)
Carpe Luminem,
Michael
[email protected] wrote:
>Some of us were arguing that by default when sent to Kenya on assigment
>you will take great shots. Others were saying that you can get great shots
>without even leaving your home but you need a good eye for that. Rest was
>arguing that good equipment is the way to go and croping the images will
>get you the results you wanted anyway.
>
>Who was right? I don't know. Having a great equipment really helps. Having
>a great eye is a plus too. Being at the right place at the right time is a
>key to the right shot. And perceiving the world in a different way will
>get you great photos too. I guess combination of all the mentioned factors
>will give you nice resoults.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001
From: ajacobs2 [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica ETRSi lenses, was "Re: Pro Wedding Photographers?"
You made me think back about when I really got into Wedding Work. Thats
why I said if my income was dependant on wedding work today those are
the lenses I would use. I'm glad it's not needed for my income, I like
weekends off. I may venture out to do one once in a while now but I
don't look for it.
Equipment:
The funny part is if you go anywhere in the States the Mamiya is the big
seller.
The Hasselblad also enjoys popularity here in the states. But when I was
in Europe and England I saw more Bronica, and Rollie cameras. Even
today you just don't see too many Medium Format anywhere in numbers to
the likes of 35mm, P&S, and digitals even at weddings.
I'm afraid the Wedding Business here (and if you read my post it said if
I only did Weddings.....I'd starve was what I meant) has really changed.
Way too much competition from weekend warriors and all the dress and
bridal salons have onboard staff now.
I grew up in the days of the TLR's. the Rollies, Yashica, Minolta and
Mamiya TLRS. I had a Rollicord and three Yashica's, we didn't change
backs, we changed cameras and shot with bulbs. You needed three Yashicas
because everyone of them took turns at 110-114 Queens Boulevard (could
be wrong address, it was thirty five years ago) which was Yashicas
repair center. The Rollie kept on ticking but since we only got paid 35
dollars a wedding plus commission who could afford another Rollie TLR. (
The joint I worked for did ten weddings a weekend). Minoltas lasted
three weddings and broke. No better than the Yashicas. Shutter releases.
Then the dawn............the Mamiya 330/220's and they worked, and then
the Strobonar by Honeywell Flash with the 510 Volt Battery pack which
could on a fairly wet day electrocute you.....Graflex also had a strobe
with battery that looked like bowling ball with a three inch leather
strap and weighed as much as a bowling ball.
The Photographers:
Shooter One:
Someone totally dedicated to the field, an artisan, mixes the medium
format with 35 (for the reach of the 35mm) The obvious freedom to
photo-journalize the wedding. (Mixed emotions here, for those that are
good, they are very good. For the rest it's a bill building scam.)
Probably works with an assistant and average price here for a quality
job 3000-6000 dollars. Goes to all the right places, like the PPA, nice
studio etc.....
Many are starting to share offices with Bridal salons. Many have
Kreonite R4 setups and just proof outside. It's simple one guy can only
do 50-60 weddings a year, with out having to hire a number two or three.
Why not take the cream of the crop. Wedding photgraphers in a bridal
salon have a captive audience.
Shooter Two:
The guy who does commercial photo work and needs the dollars on a
Saturday that a wedding can bring in. Also may go Medium Format and
35mm. Like the Medium on Demand, Don't ask Default is 35mm. Works in a
camera store or lab or has another key job for food and other needs. In
our area 500 to 1000 dollars. Some can do a decent job and most because
of the tax laws don't keep the negatives. I never kept nor wanted them.
With the divorce rate what it is, the chance of selling one year later
shots is nil. And the cost of keeping all that stuff is not worth it.
Shooter Three:
The weekend warrior has graduated to 35mm from point and shoot. Thinks
ambient light is yellow only and is found at traffic intersections. When
we had our pro lab going (VPS photo and Lab) we got these guys all the
time. The two hundred dollar, or friend of the Bride wedding shooter. I
really felt sorry for those getting married. We actually have a store
here in town that does the 179.00 (up from 159.00) wedding. The results
suck and thats all they get.
If you went to my page...www.aljacobs.com read BRIDEZILLA, I wrote it
sightly different language thirty something years ago. You are welcome
to use it when some asks someone to shoot the wedding. Three hundred
weddings was enough for me, I like commercial stuff better. One client,
one job, one check and if you treat them right they come back.
From: Liz [email protected]>
Subject: Re: New photography business
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001
"Jennifer Williams" [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi. I'm new to this newsgroup and I was wondering if there are any fellow
> photographers out there who started their own businesses when they were
> young (around 21). How hard is it, and what do you do to get started?
> I'm interested in all kinds of photography.
Either you have to be a general stock photographer - the money for this
seems to be getting less due to the digital revolution and royalty-free
suppliers, and shoot for the market, rather than necessarily things you like
shooting, or you find a unique specialism.
For instance, one of my husband's friends discovered there was no-one who
could photograph properly his paintings for catalogues etc (oil paintings
are difficult to light, being prone to hot spots) so he staarted doing it
himself. Now he's absolutely 'the man' for this in our area, but it's still
not his only source of income.
Another bloke I know (vaguely) wins competitions all the time for his
wildlife photography and is a 'big name' in Scotland, but his photography
hardly pays for itself, and he has a day job to support his family.
Other than that, the few photographers I know have had to compromise on what
they want to do, and do weddings, babies or industrial stuff to make a
living.
IIRC, it was John Shaw who said you'd do better selling beanie babies at
art/craft fayres.
The downside of keeping the day job is the number of days you're working
when the light is perfect, and the number of weekend days when it rains or
is otherwise unsuitable, not to mention all the chores and family duties you
are obliged to do on days off.
the upside, of course, is that you get to eat...
Your age is probably on your side.
Liz
--
Website: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lizleyden
Kenya & Tanzania safaris, Seychelles & India
Image manipulation and some basic computer calligraphy.
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [Rollei] black and white development
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Mark Rabiner at [email protected] wrote:
> Have the museums and galleries and collectors forsaken the silver print
> in their collecting for inkjet?
> I think not. A silver print still packs a lot more weight.
> Injects are going to have to be around a lot longer, get legs, before
> it's value matches up with silver
You're right about this. Galleries and museums have been reluctant to
accept inkjet (even if you call it giclee!) because it is an unknown factor.
Properly processed gelatin silver prints are known to be archival. Inkjet
prints have yet to prove themselves, although Cone's should be archival
since they use carbon as the pigment.
I've been invited to do some gallery shows this summer. They don't want
inkjet prints because their customers won't buy them. They want gelatin
silver. I'm planning on doing the prints in a hybrid manner since the
originals exist only in digital form. I've located a lab in California
which will make black and white negatives from my digital files (four
up on an 8 X 10 sheet) for $ 75 each. I'll use the resulting 4 X 5
negatives to make archival, fiber base prints in my darkroom.
The best of both worlds.... I think AA would have done something similar
if he had been around longer.
Bob
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Subject: medium format
To: [email protected]
Hi,
I thought i'd drop a line or two. I have a Pentax 645, w/ a few lenses &
flash; I use 35mm primarily. Now I shoot some informal portraits each month
w/35mm, and sell the pictures.
I also have shot many 35mm scenic landscape, cityscapes and travel. I have
about 18 years 35mm exp.
I'd like to use this Pentax 645 more, but feel it's not appropriate; most
local processing labs don't get much 120 work, and the customers I
photograph don't know the difference between 35mm, and better. They don't
want to pay much either.
So bottom line, how can I use this camera for it's best effect, and use the
images; just for my own enjoyment, or what?
Thanks for your patience, and assistance; I appreciate your time and
information.
Walt
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Super Coolscan 8000ED
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
> From: [email protected] (Print It, Inc.)
> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
> To: Rollei User Group [email protected]>
> Subject: [Rollei] Super Coolscan 8000ED
>
> My knees are beginning to turn to rubber over the thot of one of these new
> toys. Bob Shell has a nice article in the Sept/Oct issue of
> eDIGITALPHOTO.com on this machine. I have some questions about the
> observable difference in prints obtained from negatives versus
> transparencies:
> How come is it that transparencies with their reduced (compared to
> negatives) latitude can contain greater information than negatives?
> Once a transparency is processed and printed, is there really any
> difference in appearance quality, over that from a negative-based print? If
> there is no difference, why do so many publishers still demand
> transparencies?
> And finally, how well does the Coolscan 8000ED handle color negatives?
> My 3 Rolleis want to know. :-)
>
> pk
>
You are confusing latitude with tonal range. Slide films have less latitude
but a greater tonal range, negative films have more latitude but less tonal
range.
Scanning either can produce excellent results if you know what you are
doing. Because slides tend to be contrastier, the scanner has its profile
for slide film set to compensate, and has a different profile for color
neg.
In both cases you can tweak things in Photoshop to get whatever look you
want. You could shoot the same subject twice, once on slide film and once
on color neg, and adjust in Photoshop to create identical image files if
you wanted to do that.
Why do publishers still ask for slides? Habit. It's what they're used to.
They can get equally good results from a color neg, but most aren't
comfortable with that because they can't direct view a neg on a light box
and know what they are looking at. I find lots of publishers spec sheets
still ask for slide film, but when I offer them a fully adjusted digital
file instead they are delighted. I haven't had a publisher turn down a
digital file yet.
Bob
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Paradigm Shift
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
> From: "Conrad A. Weiser" [email protected]>
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
> To: [email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Paradigm Shift
>
> And next they'll be throwing a fit if you hand them a roll a film and didn't
> email in the image files straight off the digicam. :)
That's already the case. All of the magazines I work for these days want me
to either send them digital files on a CD or FTP the files to them. Even
Photomagazin in Moscow has me FTP the images. Most production departments
would be lost if someone actually sent them film. I love this since the
originals never leave my office these days.
Bob
From: [email protected] (TW406)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: Why positives for publishing?
Amazing! But what size inventories do these photographers have? I've read
that stock isn't even worth considering unless you have tens of thousands of
images to offer.
The first guy I mentioned has been doing this maybe 10 years, most of what he
creates is for stock, some magazine photo-illustration and local assignment.
The second guy is a full-time commercial corporate photographer. He probably
does have thousands and thousands of images, but keep in mind fashion,
computers and high-tech processes change really quickly so only the most recent
has value.
The third guy creates it all for stock, though I'm sure he does assignment work
too.
Read PhotoDistrict news, get some copies of the stockbooks to see what's being
done (and sold). Photonica and Graphis are kinda artsy, Stone, Corbis more
business like. There are literally hundreds.
You need to have images that tell a story for a business context to sell. The
main usages are ads, brochures, annual reports, mailers, web, etc. Nudes,
babies, scenics, flowers are limited. Communicating a concept is good.
I'd guess that if anyone had a hundred strong, unique, consistent, high-quality
images from a personalized viewpoint with a communicative message they could
get them placed with a stock agency and build from there. Once you're placed,
they give you feedback on what sells, what type of images they're short of and
trends and changes in the industry.
I remember my friend was shooting "umbrellas" a few years ago from a
recommendation from the stock agency. Now he's doing kids, lifestyle.
Its all about quality and desirability, not volume.
Good luck.
From: "Steve Dunlop" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why positives for publishing?
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002
Right.
The seasoned professional with years of experience
who knows what the corporate graphic designers want,
can make it work. If not a living, at least some extra
money coming in and something to do during slow times.
The "advanced amateur" who is looking to offset the
costs of the hobby by selling shots of antique cars, bears,
kittens, and the empire state building will loose money.
Stock can be broadly divided into two categories: people
and everything else. Shooting people for stock requires
dealing with models, sets, and a studio environment, which all
costs money and is in and of itself a skill that is very different
than the photography itself. So you better know that what
you're doing will sell before you start.
Shooting "everything else" has problems of access
and timing. The stock books have some really cool
photos from factories, warehouses, airports, and the
like. For all these the photog has to have some degree
of sponsership in order to get in and take the shot.
The seasoned commercial shooter can work his
customer base to get access, but if somebody who's
nobody shows up and wants to make some chromes
in the factory, well, it doesn't happen that way.
--
Steve
From: [email protected] (TW406)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: Why positives for publishing? NOW STOCK.
Aren't there some sort of publications that list or inventory all the types
of images that stock agencies and other clients are currently looking for?
I seem to recall such publications, with short publication cycles and high
(?) subscription prices.
I know a photographer that subscribes to an email service that sends out lists
of wants, usually from the end client who couldn't find what they were looking
for from stock houses. He never said what the cost was.
From: Stefan Patric [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why positives for publishing?
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002
Mxsmanic wrote:
> "TW406" [email protected] a ,crit ...
>> uh, many photographers do quite well from it.
>
> Any numbers or percentages?
The average split is 60/40. 60 for the agency and 40 for the
photographer. This isn't all that bad, since the agency takes care of
all the duping, filing, advertisng & promoting, billing, etc. All the
photographer has to do is shoot sellable chromes.
--
Stefan Patric
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How much to charge for web publication?
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
> I've received an enquiry from a small consulting business wanting to use
> one of my photographs as the central element on the entry page of their
> website.
>
> Anyone with an idea on what to charge for this? I'm not a professional
> photographer and have no idea what the rates and conditions are in such
> a case. Any help?
>
> Oh, and do note that I'm in Europe if that makes any difference.
Depends on size in pixels, how long the image is used, and how "deep" the
image appears (in this case it's top level/front page). Sometimes the domain
too is taken into account, charging more for use in an international domains
(.com, .org, etc) than in a national domain (.de, etc.: about 30% less). And
less (about 50%) when the site has no domainname of its own.
Some numbers to use as a rough (!!!) guide, priced in Euros:
Size in pixels: 50x75 - 100x150 - 200x300 - 400x600
One week: 175 - 210 - 250 - 300
One month: 220 - 260 - 320 - 380
Three months: 275 - 330 - 400 - 475
Six months: 350 - 415 - 500 - 600
One year: 430 - 520 - 620 - 750
Longer: 540 - 650 - 775 - 930
Pages 1 level down: 25% less; two levels down: 50% less, deeper: 60% less.
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002
From: William Nettles [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] CameraMaking Book?
Reply-To: [email protected]
John,
Though I am sure that we would all like to see a book on camera making I too
am curious as to what the benefit would be to us as contributors.
I for one have become very tired of seeing books cranked out by companies
like Rizzoli-All for their profit with nothing to the contributors.
(If say you were a semi-famous artist and Rizzoli approached you the deal
would be this:
1. You hire the designer, the writer and the photographers.
2. You sign away any rights to your book to Rizzoli.
3. They keep any money they make selling the books and you take any
responsibility for any legal problems that might come up.
4. If you want any copies of your book you pay Rizzoli the book store
wholesale price.
Before considering such an offer I would suggest doing what I have done. Buy
Quark, produce your own book and have it printed. Hong Kong and Thailand do
excellent work at great prices. You can make a 3000 edition run of a niche
subject and sell them yourself to book stores. The book I participated in
has now sold 5000 copies at $15 each with a production cost of about
$20,000. This could have been cut in half if there had been one instead of
two runs and it had been printed overseas.)
My second gripe is seeing books written by English majors whose technical
skills are limited to changing the cartridge in their laser printer and the
technical writing seminar course they once attended. Most home improvement
and reapir books are ridiculoously bad. They are not for beginners, they
have good grammar and zero technical value. Computer books are the most
egregious examples. The manuals are usually written by engineers in a big
hurry, but the after market books are almost all written by professional
writers commissioned by publishers. I've met some of these people--their
contempt is only exceeded by their ineptitude.
So John, the thrill of seeing my name in print next to a glossy photo of
some widget I've made is tempered by the prospect of my efforts benifitting
Rupert Murdoch.
What if any is the benefit to this community of photographer/tinkerers?
What are your credentials?
Sincerely,
---William Nettles
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why positives for publishing? NOW STOCK.
Stone is part of . The link is at the bottom of
the page.
For a really good look at how much Getty controls
http://corporate.gettyimages.com/about/
Corbis is a different story.
http://www.corbis.com/corporate/press/background/default.asp tells a little
about the history. They are not very informative directly about their
acquisitions, like Sygma.
Graphistock is part of Graphis, which produces a very nice magazine. More history
here http://www.graphis.com/abt/abt.hist.EN.html Not small, but somewhat
independent.
The other two you mentioned are indeed private companies, like several hundred
others. It is good to here that they are being used, rather than the two
giants.
The big question for a photographer would be whether to sell to the large guys, or
try the small guys. The smaller stock agencies may be more willing to accept your
work, but will your work get as many sales?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From nikon mailing list:
From: "South Caulfield" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
Subject: [Nikon] Charging for Weddings - IMPORTANT READ!!!
There seems to be many photographers doing their "first wedding"
I do hope all of you charge properly for your work. This is important for
many reasons:
1. A cheap price means you don't put value on yourself or your work.
2. A cheap price means you won't get respect from the couple.
3. A cheap price means nothing in reserve if you order a few wrong
enlargements & have to redo them at your own expense.
4. A cheap price means you have to use a cheap lab. Never economise by not
using a pro lab - otherwise your results will be crap.
5. A cheap price means you have to cut corners.
6. A cheap price means not much income to reinvest in new equipment. Doing
weddings means you need AT LEAST 2 camera bodies, 2 flashes, etc.
7. Cheap work means not much money to buy DECENT equipment. You will not
look professional if you turn up to a wedding using an F50.
8. People who screw you on price, are the ones who cause the most trouble,
never reorder, and are the ones who will copy the photos. Full paying
clients usually order many enlargements after the wedding, and appreciate
you the most.
9. Don't charge much, and you are in debt if you lose/damage/have stolen
equipment whilst on a job.
10. Do cheap jobs, and you will get a reputation for "cheap work", and you
will never shake it.
11. Work for little money, and you will spoil the industry for us full-time
photographers who rely on well paying jobs to put bread on the table.
Remember, you get what you pay for. If you are doing a job "for a friend",
you can certainly negotiate a better price, but still, don't work for
peanuts. For a good friend, I DO NOT CHARGE ANYTHING, but give my services
as their wedding gift.
S.C.
Melbourne, Australia.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1542
[email protected] writes:
I finally decided to organize my negatives.
Here's my approach. Everything is filed chronologically from 1948 to the
present. All monochrome roll films are filed in a series of binders, 50
Print File pages to a binder. All formats of roll film are filed together.
(Over the years I have shot 35mm, 828, superslide (127 film), 645, 6x6, 6x7
and 6x9 formats but all the monochromes are together in the same set of
binders.) For each roll of film, I have a paper page which is ruled and has
a no-tear edge. On that page I record the file number and date exposed, the
film, camera and any special processing. Then each frame is identified as to
subject matter and sometimes the lens, with notes about which ones to enlarge
and to what extent. This helps greatly when I am scheduling a printing
session, as most of the printing decisions have already been made. I do not
make proof sheets of monochrome film--54 years of experience let my eyes
make decisions, which are usually correct.
For color negatives, I do exactly the same as above, in a different set of
binders, but file numbers have a "C" prefix. Color proofs are filed in a
separate set of binders, with the same file numbers as the negatives. I
tried filing color negatives and proof prints together, but it was too
cumbersome. If I am looking for something in color to enlarge, it is easier
to flip through the proof-only binders.
Large-format negatives (mostly monochrome, and all 4x5) are filed
chronologically in another binder.
Chromes (of which I shoot very little, unless I need slides of my photos for
show juries, or the customer wants a chrome as the final product) are filed
in a similar fashion--numbered, with pages identifying everything.
How do I keep track of 54 years worth of photos? I use a simple file created
with MS Word, with 50 rolls of film per file, and a separate folder for
monochrome, color, large negs, and chromes. Using the "search" command I can
find any desired subject matter and date. I am sure there is exotic software
out there to index photos, but this simple approach works for me.
Incidentally, I keep the photo index on a separate floppy, and have a backup
floppy stored at a different location.
Best regards--
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: portrait business--where to start
you wrote:
>So--I have ideas, but don't know where to start--can any of you help?
>Brochures/Postcards/shows/coldcalls/preschools???????
Depends on the type of trade you hope to attract. One young but talented
fellow in my old neighborhood arranged to have sample 16x20 prints hang in
a local bank for a month. Kept him busy for half a year. I once traded
photography for service at a local hair salon. The manager contacted
customers he wanted to feature (including conveniently several local high
school kids) and I did the shots and gave him the prints at cost i return
for a year of free service (once a month) from him for my wife & me plus
all the referrals from people who liked the photography.
You'll get fewer but better replies from a more focused campaign than from
cold calling or post cards and the pre-school route is the road to "Xerox"
photography favored by the summer camp and school picture crowd (and I was
a school picture guy for several years so there's no veiled disrespect there).
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: portrait business--where to start
you wrote:
>I started by reading lots of portriat books. Some are a waste others are
>really good. Videos are an even better teacher. The ultimate is hands
>on classes. In my area they have Wicher 1 & 2 portrait and lighting
>classes. There is a good hand metering book you should get also.
Good points. I suggest:
Portrait book:
Kodak #O-24 The Portrait - Professional Techniques and Practices -- Kodak # E1021443
and, Amphoto's50 Portrait Lighting Techniques for Pictures That Sell.
The hand metering book is
The Hand Exposure Meter Book by Martin Silverman with Bob Shell and Jim
Zuckerman.
For classes in traditional portraiture, try your local or state
chapter of the Professional Photographers of America. (http://www.ppa.com/)
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002
From: "gdstaples" [email protected]
Subject: Re: NY Insistute of Photography?
Dave:
I am not familiar with NYIP but attended RIT and graduated from
Brooks Institute of Photography in 1989. If you can get to RIT I
would highly recommend it but it isn't cheap. Unless you are on a
scholarship type program you are going to lay out about $25K per
year. Brooks is about $33K at the present time. If your not set on
being a photographer as a profession I would suggest getting your
degree in business or marketing and then pursuing photography.
In my 20+ years experience as a professional I can tell you first
hand that photography (as a profession) is 90% business and marketing
and 10% photography. There are VERY few photographers that make it
big based on just talent. Most successful photographers are good
business and marketing talents in addition to being a good
photographer.
Regards,
Duncan
--- In Minolta@y..., "David Calvarese" dhcalva@f... wrote:
> Anyone have any thoughts on NYIP? Is it worth the money to invest in
> the courseS?
>
> Dave
> --
> David Calvarese
> dhcalva@f...
From: "zeitgeist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.help,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Event Photography Advice Sought, Please Reply !!
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002
> I have been asked to be the main event photographer for an alumni reunion
> this Saturday night. The pictures will mainly be of people posing with
> their old homerooms. I need advice on how to keep track of what group is
> what and who is in each group. For example, I will take pictures of
> Homeroom 408 from the class of 1992. I don't want to get those photos
mixed
> up with Homeroom 412 from the class of 1992.
>
> Any advice ?
>
>
either a sign board in the image,
Homeroom 408
or shoot an identifier for each roll on the first frame and keep a log or
shot sheet.
It also helps if you hire someone from the class to help you package.
Pro labs that specialize in this sort of job/dances proms etc can help you
with a log sheet and offer marketing tips, packages that can help you
improve your sales. things are more sophisticated than printing only one
package per neg, you can have six different packages with extra wallet add
ons etc for prom type shots.
You can make a lot of money on reunions with various groups etc, I'd say
that getting homerooms together would likely be a nightmare, but groups of
homies, other groups and small circles of friends would likely have you
making $50 to a $100 per shot. One of the prom package options available
is split package for groups. This means that whatever package the group
chooses, each person pays half, gets half the package. So usually the
cheapest package is 2 5x7's and 4 wallets for a total of $20 with tax. Each
person in the group pays $10 and gets one 5x7 and 2 wallets, the lab will
count faces and print accordingly. So a group of 10 kids can gross you
$100. (they rarely buy a large package)
Will you have to mail the pictures? most likely, make your small and medium
packages 5x7 based. It is so much easier and cheaper to mail a 5x7 than an
8x10, the envelope and padding is much simpler and the postage is a lot
less.
Oh, reunions can be a royal pain, never ever agree to a 5 year high school
reunion, most of the 'kids' now have a license to drink, drink with all
their drinking buddies without looking over their shoulders and you'd be
lucky to not loose an umbrella or flash head to a drunk staggering over it.
It can be worse than spring break.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com from
rptp
from leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: HELP--someone wants to buy my pictures...
Nathan,
Jim Pickerell is an authority in pricing photography. Go to:
http://www.pickphoto.com/
as his stuff might be of help.
Jim
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Book by Isaak Maizenberg
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Kevin Kalsbeek at [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> I must agree with you about the copyright issue, though I also agree
> that it is good if information is available. It seems to me that someone
> who knows the family contact them and ask about this. It would be a good
> thing if this relatively rare and useful book was available as a PDF or
> other format. I would buy one (CD) to support the project and I have a
> copy of the book!
> It seems right that the family get some of the cost of the CD or
> whatever.
> Regards,
> Kevin K
The normal arrangement is a royalty of XX % of the sale price, usually
between 5 % and 12 %.
Bob
From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Travel photography
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 1
karen wrote
>I am going travelling this summer and will be taking my camera. I
>hope to sell these photos on my return. Can anyone give me any
>information on how to do this?
>
>Thanks
>
>Karen
This is an idea that's occurred, frankly, to everyone and their brother.
Which means that the market is glutted with photos and stories, and thus
very hard to break into. It also means that many magazines and publishers
throw out unsolicited work in these areas. And if you look, you'll likely
find that it's difficult to even locate the correct address for a postcard
company.
Approach it from a professional standpoint (which means you'll get no
simple answer from a newsgroup). Start finding books and seminars on
marketing. Take a look and find out if your work is up to publication
standards (for a start, consistently sharp, well-exposed slides with
excellent composition). Do you have enough work to put together a portfolio?
Can you write? Can you put together a sample package, of a previous trip
perhaps, that you could send out to editors to try and get them interested
beforehand? Do you know where, and how, to send this? (Buy the book entitled
"Photographer's Market 2002", put out every year. There's also one for
writers). Look for publications by Rohn Engh, and check out
http://www.photosource.com/.
Right now, there's a lot of photographers in the market with a stock and
database of thousands of images (I myself have over two thousand, and
haven't *started* yet). They know what editors want, which ones to aim for,
and how to present it to them. You'll be competing directly against them, so
you'll have to be prepared to do so.
Not to be nasty, but to be truthful. If you're discouraged, you're off
on the wrong foot. If you're challenged by this, you've got the attitude, at
least. :-)
- Al
From: "Gene" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Unhappy bride-grooms/Digital
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote:
>
> This is just speculation, but I'm thinking you'd find that most of the
> 'perpetrators' weren't experienced wedding photographers, but weekend
> wannabes that saw a way to make a quick buck.
Having been a weekend wedding photographer since 1965, let me assure you
that this is not a way to make a quick buck. It has, however, allowed me to
support my hobby without taking food out of the mouths of my kids.
While not a Dennis Reggie or Monte Zucker, I'm proud of the work that I do.
It has been suggested many times that I should "go into it full time." The
fact that I have not, is a business decision based on:
1. I can make more money in my regular profession.
2. I fear that some of the magic would disappear if I "HAD" to pick up the camera.
If I pocket $1000 profit for a wedding, a lot of people would consider that
a quick buck for 8 hours work. But it's not 8 hours. First of all my wife is
my partner and she's there for 8 hours as well. Still not bad $62.50 an
hour. But, we now add the time to:
1. Pitch the sale
2. Buy the film
3. Attend the rehersal
4. Pack up the equipment.
5. Drive to the wedding
6. Drive home and unpack
7. Deliver the film to the processor (1.5 hour round trip during rush hour)
8. Pick up the previews (1.5 hour round trip during rush hour)
9. Prepare the proof album
10. Deliver the proof album to the bride (or to the Post Office)
11. Select the negatives for the print order and card
12. Deliver the negatives to the processor (1.5 hour round trip during rush
hour)
13. Pick up the print order (1.5 hour round trip during rush hour)
14. Order the album(s) and pages
15. Pick up the album(s) and pages
16. Prepare the deliverables
16a. There is often another pair of trips to the processor inserted here to
correct any errors, with the order, by the lab or myself.
17. Prepare the invoice
18. Deliver the album(s)
19. Take the check to the bank
20. Make all general ledger entries for income and expense
21. Fill out schedule C with income tax
22. Fill out state sales tax forms.
Add all this up and a wedding easily becomes a 40 hour project.
.....
Gene
From: John Miller [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which would you take?
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> More photos does not necessarily equal more good photos, and certainly not
> better photos.
As long as you say "not necessarily," that's hard to argue with, but just
for purposes of discussion...
...don't you believe there must be some validity to National Geographic
photographers, for example, shooting about 200 exposures for each one that
ends up in the magazine?
There's something to be said for the notion that the second most important
photographic tool is the wastebasket.
--
John Miller AMA 739245
In a poll of 182 respondents who shoot stock, BJP Equipment News 21 June 2002
reported:
# shots % of respondents
<10 ~3%
10-20 ~10%
20-40 ~21%
40-60 ~24%
>60 ~42%
From: Thomas Edward Witte [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How many rolls did you shoot last year?
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002
In 2000 I shot roughly 1,820 rolls. (7 per day, five days a
week). However last year I was 100% freelance shooting only film, and
according to my files I have 4,273 neg sheets in the books.
This year I have only shot 498 rolls, but also shot 13,893 frames
on my digital camera as of today.
Back when I was a novice, I think I shot about 200 rolls a year.
I'd get a little carried away. :)
Thomas
GO Photography
http://www.mindspring.com/~photoj
fotolover wrote:
> I took a look at my photo logs and realized that I had shot 112 rolls
> of primarily 36 exposure film over the last 12 months. Is this normal
> for an amateur photographer based on your experience?
>
[Ed. note: I haven't tried this list, so caveat emptor, but possible interest to some, so:]
From: [email protected] (Bruce Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Free newsletter on starting a photography business
Date: 10 Jul 2002
Free newsletter reveals the insider secrets to starting your own
photography business and making money part-time or full-time with your
35mm or digital camera. Contains heaps of useful information.
Portrait, glamour, wedding, portfolio, commercial and nature
photography.
Earn an income doing something you love to fund better photographic
equipment or photography tours or replace your full-time income.
If you are interested then go to
http://www.photographybusinessmastery.com to subscribe
From: DJ! [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: education vs. experience?
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002
[email protected] (woodsie)
wrote:
>just a few q's from a novice...
>
>how many of you studied photography and have some form of qualification ?
>do u consider the study vital in your career or does it all come down to
>real world experience and experimintation?
I'm an amateur. No qualifications. No formal training.
I had a former work colleague who inspired me to take up photography.
That was over 10 years ago.
I wanted training. He gave me five pieces of advice instead. It was
simple advice (paraphrased from my memory):
o When starting out, concentrate on the composure of the image above
and beyond all other considerations. Composure, he said, will always
be the most important element of a good photograph.
o Take lots of photos and be ruthless with your self-critique. From my
first 50-odd rolls of film, I'd be lucky to keep 2 or 3 photos from
each roll. Don't accept anything less than your best at that time.
o When starting out, don't dwell on your good images. Instead, spend
time on the "rejects". Ask your photographic peers; your local minilab
operator - or anyone else that's prepared to be honest with you -
what's wrong with the images and what could be done better next time.
Ask the questions that will start introducing you to the technical
aspects of photography in a relevant, contextual way, "Why aren't the
bushed behind the flower blurry like I wanted them to be?"; "Why are
the photos slightly green?"; "Why is everyone stepping off the train
in this photo blurry"; "Why can't I see a reflection of the city in
the night water?" etc etc
o Enjoy the photography of others, but try to "forget" the images
afterwards. Otherwise, you run the risk of becoming a clich,d and
stylised understudy of that artist.
o Once you are comfortable with composure and technique, photography
is all about telling the camera how to capture what the mind, not the
eyes, sees. Think about it.
Just my 2.2c worth.
DJ!
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens Quality--How Do You Rate It?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002
"McLeod"
wrote:
>I can write the depreciation of my equipment off my income but I think my
>accountant says it takes 7 years on average to deduct the entire cost of a
>camera.
[It is too bad to follow such a wonderful post as that
of GM's, above, with this pedestrian entry, but it does
have practical import {not that GM's doesn't...;-}]
Then you need another accountant - for several years it
has been possible to "expense" gear in a single year
instead of using the "accountant-heavy" method of
depreciation - and, BTW, who ever took *7 YEARS* to
depreciate gear even when it *was* necessary to
depreciate gear on tax forms?! ;-) Methinks your
accountant has you "hooked"...;-)
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:54:14 -0700
From: Mark Rabiner
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Fairly OT: Wedding Question
David Meiland wrote:
>
> Apologies in advance for the somewhat off topic question. I'm hoping that a
> few from this knowledgable group can help me out with the following:
>
> I've been hired to shoot a wedding in a few weeks, with an unusual (for me)
> condition: there is to be no movement and no distracting noise during the
> ceremony. I can shoot as normal in the aisle during the processional and
> recessional, but once the bride takes her place, I'm outta there and not
> making any sound. I spoke to the officiant on the phone and he mumbled
> something about a long lens and none of those noisy winders or cameras with
> big, slammin' mirrors. Anyway, this will cramp my style, as normally I will
> stand right in front of the bride's mother for a few shots, and then right
> next to the officiant for a few more. Can't do that this time...
>
> Now, I've already told the HC to expect to stage some shots either before
> or after the ceremony if they want them (they do, and will oblige) but I'm
> wondering if any of you have been in this situation before, and what you
> did about it. As far as I can imagine, l'll have to retreat to the end of
> the aisle during the ceremony, shoot from there, and be ready for the
> recessional. I'd normally move out to the sides but since I have to stay
> there once I get there, it doesn't seem like the thing to do.
>
> It has occurred to me in my Rube Goldberg moments to rent a handful of
> 503CW bodies and winders, get long lenses on them, and hide them in the
> trees and shrubbery on gaffer's arms and clamps. Then, with the push of a
> button I could take a handful of shots all at once. I could also, of
> course, bring an assistant to sit somewhere and shoot a second angle during
> the ceremony, or even two and get three angles. Aside from these options,
> what else is there? Aerial shots? A lapel fisheye on the officiant's jacket
> button?
>
> All input welcome (perhaps by email rather than on the list... use your
> judgement). Thanks!
>
I've shot about 150 weddings in 30 years just to give you a perspective.
A dozen of them I was at the back row with a camera on a long lens on a tripod.
I had another hand held camera ready to shoot them as they ran down the
aisle at me.
Half of them I lean up and hide behind the rows of pillars that are
along the aisles in half the churches.
You can have most of the people in the "audience" not see you this way
or conversely; hide from most of the people in the wedding party as you
shoot around the pillar at them.
I've made a discovery which may be slightly original.
If you make an exposure while the holy person up there behind the podium
speaking it would probably bother the people next to you in the crowd
out to twenty people. Flash or no flash.
Believe it or not if you wait till they finish thier darn sentence, THEN
you shoot no one notices are cares. And even more unbelievable: this
includes flash.
And I've used flash in most of my weddings and people say to the wedding
couple: Great wedding its a shame you didn't have a photographer!"
Certainly the best compliment i could get although hard to believe i
could be that invisible.
Those pillars do come in handy!
But you're used to standing right in front of the mother of the bride
during the ceremony?
That certainly represents an older approach and one which nowadays is
getting less and less tolerated.
Actually it pretty much went out 20 years ago.
I tell them: if getting the shot means I'm disturbing people; then i
don't get the shot.
Although that's a little bit of an exaggeration.
There's no way a wedding photographer with a Hasselblads with a grip and
a flash is going to be invisible during any part of a wedding. But we
can make some effort to stay out of the way as much as possible.
A wedding is not a media event. But tell that to the relatives with the
point and shoots!!
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002
Paul
Ah I missed this post
> No, it's not just a hobby, I want to make money from it. I did go
> freelance once but failed miserably.
:-(
> not because of my photos,
Agreed
> I'm just useless when it comes to selling them.
You have two options AIUI
1) sell them yourself
2) put them with a library and let them do the selling.
(look for a specialist library as you work in a narrow area)
I suspect (1) would be best with a little planning
but if in doubt (2) could be safer ie they know how to handle
copyright and also things like not selling to competing buyers
Look for magazines that may use your images ie outdoor mags, camping
mags, travel mags etc etc
Find out who the photobuyer for each magazine is
(tell me the mag and I will tell you the buyer)
Send sample images to each buyer, maybe as a CD presentation
html or pdf
NOT powerpoint with animations and sound - KISS
If a library choose very carefully as they will want your images
for a few years typically 5 yrs, make sure they have a good on line
policy - do not expect to earn straight away the sell/purchase/pay
cycle can be long.
See Robert Harding library in the web links below.
------------------------------------------
READ
photos that sell author = Lee Frost -all about the freelance industry
Taking pictures for profit author = Lee Frost
Sell & ReSell Your Photos author = Rohn Engh
all available at your library
------------------------------------------
SEE
http://www.photosource.com/index.php
very useful
http://www.robertharding.com/fotoweb/
a library that may suit you?
http://www.epuk.org/
editorial photographer web site
http://www.ephotozine.com/
select "features" then "Freelance"
(more Lee Frost stuff including book excerpts)
http://www.bapla.org.uk/
BAPLA - largest trade association for (UK) picture/stock libraries
------------------------------------------
JOIN
bit.listproc.stockphoto
Hope that helps
Mark
From minolta mf mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Us oldtimers sticking to SLR's and film??????
saycheese9 wrote:
> *uhhhem* {cough, sputter}
>
> Excuse me here,, but why do the good magazine art directors insist on
> slides and good glass? Some of them may be kids compared to us old
> timers but they know their stuff - backwards, forewards and
> sideways
(castrated)
>All said, name me a couple good magazines who use digital
> photos on their covers.
In the small island on the right side of the Atlantic there are more
than a few. In fact, most, now. The sad fact is that digital shooting
offers such a massive increase in reproduction quality that people as
asking whether fashion photographers have started using 5 x 4 all the
time. Rankin just switched to 100 per cent digital (if you don't know
who Rankin is, he's probably the most successful and best known magazine
*owner* and photographer in Europe, and the originator of 'Dazed and
Confused').
I publish photo magazines and my brief is to get optimum quality. For
Minolta Image, we still scan 90 per cent prints and slides, since it is
sourced from amateurs. For 'Freelance Photographer' we are probably
50-50 files on disk, of which maybe 80 per cent are scanned from slides,
and having to scan slides ourselves; however, this is reducing monthly,
and I can see the possibility of an issue soon when the only originals
we scan would be contest entries. For 'The Master Photographer' it's 90
per cent digital delivery, 60 per cent digitally shot - the Fuji S1,
Nikon D1 and Canon Eos 1D or previous cameras are universally used.
Where not digitally shot it's because it is legacy material.
We've seen a quantum leap in the reproduction quality of images since
digital shooting arrived. My old criticism of professionals - that they
made worse mono prints than amateurs, and sent me inappropriately
'pitched' lab machine colour prints with the wrong density and surface
for repro - is gone. They now have full control, and some of them are
doing wonderful stuff.
I am a heretic - I'm happy with my Minolta Dimage 7i and I don't like
this bulky digital 35mm SLRs at all, or digital rollfilm backs. To me,
they defeat all logic; we get a wonderful new format, offering a chance
for reduce the size and weight of pro cameras for ever, and all the
buggers want to do is heft around kilos of familiar old oversized glass.
I saw a wee little lady photographer at a public event last week with
this HUGE Nikon D1X round her neck and some massive wide-angle zoom
trying to compensate for wide-angle 'loss'. And there's me with what
looks suspciously like a handbag, made by Lowepro, holding just a Dimage
7i and my wallet. She probably thought 'there's a bloke a silly hat with
a toy camera...'.
Having tried and having reproduced the images from all these cameras,
but not yet from the EOS 60 or Nikon D100, I can assure you the 7i holds
it own against any of them. Our first digital camera magazine cover was
in 1992 and was shot on a Kodak DCS (tiny file size) SLR by John
Henshall. Since then we have used countless full page digital camera
magazine covers, including two from the Minolta RD-3000, three from the
Dimage 7, many from Nikon D1, studio backs of different types, etc. Ok,
it's our business to be up to date. But that was ten years ago. The
magazine world has not been slow to adapt and digital is universally
accepted in the UK; all the major mail order catologues now shoot
exclusively on digital cameras and backs. The London ad agency scene has
enjoyed a 5 x 4 real film revival this year in BACKLASH against the way
digital backs took over about three years ago!
I love film, and enjoy making prints. I like slides for projection,
nothing beats a pair of Leitz Pradovits showing Duncan McEwans's superb
Minolta 35mms (enough to persuade me to move to Scotland - it was
Duncan's scenes which did it). But as a magazine editor, the sooner I
get EVERY shot by email or on disk the better - no hassle about lost
trannies, no filing drawers full of submissions, no tedious half-day
spent scanning and then retouching all the crap which some previous
repro house has plastered on the originals.
My experience will be shared by others and the idea that good art
directors and editors expect real slides ('good glass' is even more
essential for digital than for film) will soon be as outdated as the
same statements made in the early 1950s that cut sheet film would never
be replaced for newspaper pictures by rollfilm.... let alone 35mm!
David
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
From: Daniel Lee [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Marking your proofs?
Ok....so perhaps I'm na
From: Les Woods [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Flash photography - advice? books?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
Sven Hedlund wrote:
>
> I have occasionally taken photos at parties for some years, using a
> compact camera. The result has been an unpredictable mix of good and bad
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/pictureTaking/
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/pictureTaking/index.shtml
http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/1
HTH! :)
Les
les woods | graphic designer | http://www.leswoods.co.uk
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002
From: Dave Jenkins [email protected]
Subject: RE: inna rut - please help
"For that matter, how many "street photos" am I going to take of a
woman talking on a cell phone with her kids in tow, a man gazing off
into the distance, a fat lady sitting right beneath a sign that says "no
parking?" That's not "street photography," even though most people on
the list think it is - it's taking pretty meaningless photos on the
street. And since I don't have the eye of a Gary Winnogrand, that's
about all I get that way. Oh, occasionally you do really find something
as you walk along - and for those moments it's worth always carrying a
camera."
It is with fear and trembling that I dare to disagree with B.D. Colen,
remembering as I do the many times his rapier wit has destroyed those so
impudent. But, B.D., the fact is that Garry Winogrand shot just about
*everything.* His philosophy was to photograph to see what things looked
like as photographs. At his death he left thousands of rolls of
unprocessed film, and many more that had been developed, but not yet
proofed. And most of what he shot was "meaningless." But occasionally he
did "find something as he walked along." And "for those moments it was
worth carrying a camera" But he took no chances -- he shot everything in
sight, knowing that a few would be worthwhile.
My advice to the guy in a rut would be to follow Larry Bird's basketball
philosophy: shoot till you hit, then keep on shooting.
Dave Jenkins
[Ed. note: some good points on workflow, and why you need to factor these times and costs in!]
From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002
From: Waldo Berry [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Hassy lenses
Not really, a lot depends on how your workflow is set-up. let me give
you a comparison.
With film I had the following work flow:
Meter and take image.
Remove film at every 12 exposure or 24 and place in film container
Client leaves
Fill out film processing forms
Place in mailing bag and mail or call for airborne pick-up
Proofs arrive, review proofs, remove bad ones (after 4-5 days)
Grimace about misplace hairs or eyes partially closed.
Call client and set-up appointment
Scan proofs for presentation to music, build presentation (scan- 35-45
min) (presentation 15 min)
Client comes in, see presentation
Selects images
Pull out proofs and use crop card to determine crop ( extra 10 min to
line up card and mark on print)
(client picky about crop being just right, I have to mark on proofs to
make sure)
Note request for retouching or other corrective work ( 10 min)
Client wants wrinkles under eyes smoothed, stray hair removed, and
hates husbands smile on this print, wants head swap.
Client leaves, pull out negatives
Crop and fill in glassen Fill in order forms (25 min)
Fill in retouch forms ($7.50 per head, $15.00 for hair removal, $50.00
for head swap) (5 min)
Package up negatives and mail or call airborne ($5.00 shipping) (10 min)
Prints at lab for 1 week while retouching is done and shipping time.
(1 week)
Prints arrive, I sort them, file the negatives and package order
Call client, client complains it took to long to get pictures and they
missed the grandfathers birthday as a present
With digital I have the following workflow:
Meter and take image.
I immediately notice stray hair and shoot a few more images with hair
out of the way.
I notice husband pose is not as appealing and I adjust pose and add a
few more exposures.
I vary the light and exposure for other looks.
Session last same length of time as it did with film.
I place media card HD in firewire reader and download takes 3 minutes
with 24 16 Meg exposures
I ask client if they would like to return or if they can wait 20
minutes I can show them a preview.
They elect to wait
I open the images in my computer on windows XP.
I create a flip folder and drag in all images that need rotation.
I open PHOTOSHOP and run the batch automation flip action I wrote
several months ago.
It flips all the files in the folder and saves them in 1.5 minutes.
I drag the flipped images back into the original folder and review the
thumb nails. (10 sec)
Obviously bad images go into the out folder I create. (1 minute)
I blow up each good one and check the image. Any rejects go to the out
folder, (4 minutes)
I run a few images through a black and white action, and some through
some specialty filters
I open a show player program I use for presentations and point the file
upload at the client folder
It uploads the 18 remaining prints in 2 minutes.
I sequence them and use the default fade transition, I add music with
the sound link feature and set the transition speed (4 minutes)
I do a quick trial run and it is okay
I go retrieve the client
I show the show
They are of course floored and they really like the B&W and the sepias
tones
I ask if they are ready to order, they say yes,
I bring up the windows XP my computer and we look at the thumb nails
As they select each image I drag it into PHOTOSHOP and do the crop they
want.
They notice the wrinkles under the eyes and I tell them we can fix it
and what the cost will be.
I do a quick swipe over with the clone tool at 30 % and they are happy
(1 minute) ($$$$$)
I ask them if they liked the presentation, they love it and wish they
could afford to by all the images
I offer them a CD with the presentation to music, they buy it
($$$$$)
They ask when the prints will be ready and mention the birthday date, I
tell them 1 week max.
They leave, I go to my labs file upload website and load the images
online (10 min)
Two days later the prints arrive via airborne, I package and call
client.
Client arrives and is very happy and wants to order more if possible.
I deliver prints, CD.
Client wants to know if I can place images so family can see them to
order, I say yes
Client leaves, I file upload to album page for Proshots and build the
group
Lab e-mails me that the files are ready, I like the album and call
client to give them the site and password
Now you may say, there are more steps involved, but are they steps or
are they better services for the client. You may also say they take
more time, but If you look at it, it took less time, to the difference
of many days and hours. I did in 40 min what would take me several
hours with film. I also made more money, I got payed for the retouch,
I sold the CD, they got the crop they wanted, I avoided the "you should
have noticed the stray hair" from the client. I bet I can do a
session meet with the client and deliver the product with less work,
more profit and better client satisfaction. How can I say this, try
45% increase in sales, 30% more reorders, 50% more sales after initial
sales, clients who have me shoot the senior, then the wedding, then the
family, etc.
Hmmmm
makes you wonder....
I do consultations, training and lecture to photographers on how to
streamline there workflow and leverage technology while enhancing their
photographic capabilities while using digital and other technologies
Waldo Berry
>>> [email protected]
> Fortunately the large percentage of income producing work required the
> digital, which translates into lower cost on the film side and less time
> in production.
Hi Waldo,
I know a lot of people who do use digital complain that they actually spend
MORE time in production, as they have to "fuss" with ALL the images in
PS...and that takes time. It does save time in the shoot to start working
with the image category (called latency), no doubt...but I do not believe it
saves "overall" time, because though film takes longer to develop, it's
print cycle can be shorter...and while it's being developed, you can be
doing other things...so the development time, though causes latency, is
really no time out of your clock (unless you develop it your self, that is).
Regards,
Austin
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002
From: Gerry Walden [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] portfolio information
You might like to put your details on www.onemodelplace.com (which costs
nothing) and take your chances with the rest of us. At least that way your
work will be placed before young hopefull models and you will also be able
to find models if you need to. What I do is email any models in my area (UK,
so we won't tread on each others toes!) who have no photos to display on
their page on OMP, and suggest they might like to have a portfolio session.
Good luck!
Gerry
Gerry Walden LRPS
www.gwpics.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 02 September 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] portfolio information
Goodevening Everyone--
I need everyone's help for a second..I'm a freelance fashion photographer
needing to find out some agencies that have beginning model's that need
portfolios started and comp. cards. Any names or numbers you would
recommend....If anyone knows of any information..you wouldn't even think how
much I would appreciate this. I work for a Studio in Dallas shooting
portfolios for young adults and newborns. We work with Page Parkes 214.
Your more than welcome to check out my website to see some of my
work..
http://www.jbowersphotography.com
Thanks a lot!! Take Care.
Jessica Bowers
From: [email protected] (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 05 Sep 2002
Subject: Re: poor pay of pro photog avgs versus Re: Affordable Cameras
My guess is that the majority of sales of LF camera gear goes to
hobbyists, not professionals.
We kicked this around on the AOL Nature photo board this time last year. We
got ahold of someone from B&H and FUJI film, and both said their market
research showed 2:1 pro's:serious amatuers. Serious amatuers were defined as
those whose primary employment is not as a photographer (although many of them
do indeed sell photos.) I would fall into this category, and have a Cambo
45NX, Super Ang. 90mm f5.6, Fuji 150mm f5.6, Geronar 300mm f9, bag bellows, and
a few other accessories. I also have a complete Bronica ETRSi system and a
reasonably complete Nikon 35mm system (Nikkor lenses 18mm through 400mm VR &
28mm shift, plus 1.4x).
From: Tom Ferguson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: poor pay of pro photog avgs versus Re: Affordable Cameras
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002
As a working pro, I discussed this with a group of working photographers I
get together with once a month (dinner, print viewing, and lies). We all
agreed that outside of digital (were the newest was moving too fast) we
almost always bought used gear from advanced amateurs. They keep selling
gear 6 months to 2 years after buying it, because something newer is out. We
get it for 25% to 50% off the new price. That really helps when you need to
make a profit ;-)
--
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
...
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
From: Charles Megnin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Assistants and contractual agreements.
Two references:
"Business and Legal Forms for Photographers" by Tad Crawford
"Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making
Images" by Bert P. Krages
Charles
[email protected] wrote:
> I think the language is in the ASMP business bible, I'll check for sure next
> week when I'm back in.
>
> Dirk
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002
From: "zeitgeist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Engineers vs artists: Making money taking pictures.
> Not even remotely true. In the sciences and other "hard" disciplines, it is
> _far_ easier to make money than in the fine arts. People _need_ engineers,
> plumbers, bricklayers, doctors, and so on--but they do not _need_ musicians,
> photographers, painters, or dancers. And so the former professions always
> have more job security and higher incomes than the latter professions. The
> hard sciences such as engineering and construction come first, followed by
> the liberal arts (teaching, for example), followed at quite a distance by
> the fine arts: photography, dance, music, painting, sculpture, and so on.
It has been my observation that the most successful photographers, and by
'successful' I'm meaning middle class and not 'rich' as mentioned earlier,
where trained as engineers or other professions, not in the arts.
It seems that there is a strong relationship between one's job history and
their own entrepreneurial experience. Engineers, accountants, lawyers etc
tend to work for large firms that send them out to other businesses and
individuals, billing hundreds of dollars per hour for their time. So they
are used to dealing with those kinds of numbers with people who are used to
paying those kinds of numbers for professional services.
So when you go to a workshop, the front row is nearly always filed with
downsized engineers, when I was in LA in the 60's and 70's, half the folks
introducing themselves would say that they are or were aerospace engineers,
in the 80's and 90's in the bay area most of them were ex HP guys, in fact
once I was the last in a class to stand up and introduce myself by saying,
"Hi, I'm Allen and I never worked for HP," which got a big laugh.
There was a popular small business guru years ago who wrote a book called
the "entrepreneurial myth."
basically he asserts that the average self employed person does not run a
business, they merely give themselves a job. What usually happens is
similar to the noted pattern of abused kids who grow up to be abusers. That
just because you have a particular skill doesn't give the person a system
for running a business based on that skill.
"the average photographer is more likely to be successful if they go into
any other business than photography, most of you (he was giving a talk to a
pro association) would more likely still be in business five years from now
if you started a poodle clipping business than a photo studio. The reason
being is that not having dog grooming skills you are more likely to attend
to the running of the business and managing those who do have the skills
required."
so photogs tend to run their studios like their previous job experiences, or
after their other merchandising experiences, standing at a counter while the
customer brings their selections up to the register.
Engineers and other professionals tend to consult with the client in advance
to ascertain their needs, work up an action plan or previsualize the
project, crunch the numbers or whatever, meet again with the client to see
how things are tracking, complete the project. This translates with a
photographer sitting down with the client to determine what kind of image
they want, style, color scheme, story, and where it will hang, what size
might be needed, then they shoot the session, and then consult over the
results to select the images to be used. This is the major part of the
differences between $50 portrait packages and $5,000 home decor.
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002
From: Alan Browne [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Percentage of good prints per roll
When you consider that the average Nat Geo article has about 10-12
images and is supported by 29,000 frames shot, the question is pretty
damned irrelevant.
I can go two rolls with nothing to show for it. I can go a roll and
have a high "useable" ratio. My last roll of Velvia had 9 images
selected by my club for further "downselect" prior to a regional
competition. I will end up with my max club-allotment of 3/person for sure.
As for your stuff about Manual-Auto and everything in between, it is
pretty irrelvant. I shoot A, S and M as required by the situation, and
the EXP-COMP spends only rare shots at 0. And if the camera is on a
'pod, it is MF as well and so are half the hand held shots. I learned
on a manual camera but now have a camera that can be as automatic as a
P&S and as dumb as a piece of inert material can possibly be.
I understand my camera, my lens and film very well. The thing that we
all have to understand the most is the subject. It is of much more
importance than the damned mechanics of capturing the image.
Cheers,
Alan
Anthony wrote:
> Hi folks. This question is for the professionals and newbies. Going
> out for a day of picture taking,camera loaded with your favorite color
> print flim (24 exp) what percentage of your photos would you say were
> (1) Great:enlargement quality (2) Good:a real keeper (3) Fair maybe
> for your photo album (4) Bad never to be seen again. For the pro's
> with more than 15 years of experance that learned on full manual
> cameras, do you feel the photographer is becoming less relevant in the
> outcome of the photo (ie auto focus-auto
> exposure-digital-computers-auto print correction).Will full manual
> cameras become obsolete in 10 years. When using your Auto/manual
> camera; do you find yourself using manual mode more than auto mode?
> Thank You.
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002
From: Ralph Barker [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,
Subject: Re: Model Release
One of the best resources regarding model and property releases is the
Photo District News site.
Look at http://www.pdn-pix.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html for
both a discussion of the issues, and sample forms.
[email protected] wrote:
>I am having a hard time finding an example or actual Model Release/Contract
>that I can use. Would anyone know of a site where I can find one? I fear
>that if I tried to write one myself I would overlook and omit important
>information. I am particularly interested in documents that spell out
>payment stipulations ie: hourly or per session, models age,contact
>information,ownership of prints and negatives-rights of use, although any
>help will be appreciated.
[Ed. note: some notes on model releases by noted workshop instructor Bob Shell
(who is also a noted author of photo books and articles, glamour photographer...]
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: About model releases
About model releases.
Please read and provide your feedback. Thanks!
Some workshop attendees have requested clarification about model releases,
so I am sending all of you this e-mail to provide more information on this
subject.
What is a model release? A model release is a particular form of a release,
a legal document in which one individual or legal entity (such as a
corporation) releases certain rights to another individual or legal entity
There are many types of releases used in a wide variety of situations.
Legally speaking, a release is not a contract, but a separate type of legal
document unto itself. While a contract may require a witness to be valid, a
release does not require a witness, nor does it require being notarized. I
have a very good model release which has been reviewed by top intellectual
property lawyers, and I will happily supply a copy on request for your use.
A model release is absolutely required for publication. However, many
misunderstand just what publication means. Literally, publication means
making something public. This does not mean only in print media like books
and magazines. It means anything accessible by the public, and the public
is legally defined as more than one person. So technically you need a
release to use images in your portfolio if you plan on showing that
portfolio to others. However models usually understand portfolio use and
have no problems with this use, and it is unlikely that any of them would
object to you placing images of them in your portfolio and showing the
portfolio to a limited number of people. On the other hand, this does not
apply to internet portfolios, which are by their very nature available to a
much wider public.
Also, and more generally understood, you need a commercial model release
for any use of images for which you are paid money, regardless of the
medium. Models at my workshops will only sign commercial releases if paid
to do so, and I encourage them to retain approval rights on which images are
used and where/how used. As photographers you should appreciate the desire
to maintain control of how and where your images are seen.
I have always stated in my workshop information that model releases are not
included in the price of my workshops and that if needed photographers can
negotiate directly with models to obtain a release to meet their needs. I
have never required that models be willing to sign releases as models are
always concerned with controlling when and where their images appear,
particularly when the images contain full or partial nudity. I think all of
you can understand their concerns.
None of this is rocket science, just normal business practices which protect
all parties involved.
Currently I am considering the suggestion which several of you have made to
include a basic portfolio release in the workshop price. This would allow
you to put images from the workshop in your portfolio, and would allow you
to post images (with prior image approval by the models) on your web sites.
I think both photographers and models would benefit from this. I may offer
the release as an option for a small additional charge, since not every
attendee wants or needs one. I1d appreciate feedback from both
photographers and models on these ideas so I can implement the best ones for
my 2003 workshops, which are now in the planning stages. Please let me know
your thoughts on this. Any other feedback on workshops is always welcome.
I want to make my workshops bigger and better for all who attend, and can
only do this if all of you communicate your needs and ideas to me.
Best wishes to all,
Bob Shell
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Free model release
I forgot to say this in my last group post. I have the model release I use
in three versions, a Microsoft Word 6 file, an Adobe Acrobat PDF file, and
as a plain ASCII text version. I'm happy to send anyone who asks a copy.
Just let me know which file format you want.
You are welcome to use the release for your own work without charge, just
make sure to remove my name and address and put in your own. Otherwise I
will own your photos!! {g}
This is a non-commercial release for editorial and self promotion, but is
easily converted to a commercial release by removing the one line which
makes it non-commercial. If you want to convert it to commercial and don't
know what to delete, ask and I will show you.
Best wishes to all,
Bob Shell
From: "John Cremati" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] ELF cameramaker survey
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002
Gene,
I have a friend who is pursuing a similar strategy... He notified the
Republican Party in Ohio that he would offer his services for free...
All of a sudden he is taking pictures of Judges, Politicians, Well known
wealthy contributors and party members... He attends fund raisers, does
photos for their campaign and publicity shots.. Of course every one
gets a card and a 8x10 copy of the photo for free.. He has done this for
several years now... Now they are calling him for their weddings, sports
events, and personal stuff in which he gets what he asks... It is a
great stratagem I think if you can afford to hold out it will pay
off..He has created a very unique portfolio of some very wealthy,
powerful , interesting people..
John Cremati
From: "ajacobs2" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Ten Commandments of Weddings
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002
An excerpt from Weddings on my site: Since it's become an important topic
here....
Ten Commandments of Wedding Photography
1) Thou shalt have a working knowledge and be comfortable with several
formats including 35mm, medium format and digital. Differing situations
require last minute changes and flexibilty.
2) Thou shalt know thy films, their idiosyncrasies, purpose and best usage.
Ye shall make sure there is sufficient fresh quantities of film.
3) Ye shall not stick bad portraiture before me. Learn something about the
basics of portraiture or studio work so you know about lighting and facial
size, proportion, angles and layouts.
4) Ye shall read the Boy Scout handbook and be prepared. Learning about a
new piece of equipment at the wedding is paramount for disaster. Having
suitable backup gear is crucial. Murphy can be a bastard at times.
5) Thou shalt knoweth thy turf. And scope or know the Church, the Synagogue
or Mosque, its rules, the Officiate, sometimes known as the Devils worst
advocate, and sometimes confused with the Devil. Also, the reception
location beforehand. Several pros I know bring a meter and check out the
locations a month or so before the wedding day. Take notes. Sort of a way
to mark the minefields.
6) Thou shalt not passeth up good opportunities because of frugality. Extra
shots of unique moments mean extra shekels from the occasion. Shoot a lot of
film or bring extra memory for the digital camera
you cant turn the timeor studio work so you know about lighting and facial
back for that once in a lifetime shot either for you or the bride.
7) Thou shalt not stick thy head in the sand. As trends change and as the
consumer becomes aware of different trends and vogues, you have to increase
your options too. Its like a pros golf bag. He may own more than 13 clubs
but, selects what he needs for a certain tourney. He has done his homework,
knows the course, knows his qualifications and plans accordingly.
8) Thou shalt respect thy clients wishes. In todays bridal market, the
bride and her family are still spending most of their money on the more
traditional poses and bridal party groupings. Not a bad idea to get the
bride and her sponsor, (aka: whose paying for all this?) on the same page.
You could shoot the entire affair in PJ mode with more B&W footage than shot
in Vietnam and Mom wants the alter shots in 20x40 Color for the great room
and the reply is what shots? Thats what this discourse is about.ity. Extra
Traditional vs. Photojournalism. The answer is both.
9) Thou shalt spread thy table before me. Only a scam artist or idiot walks
into a wedding without the grey areas handled before hand. The rules laid
down for the paparazzi, the cooperation in place for the paparazzi, the
times and scheduled appointments met.
10) Thou shalt invest in a good Timex. Or, its all in the timing! Be
early, stick with schedules, leave a little Foo-Pah, buffer time and I will
tell you from thirty years in combat, countless experiments, and more trying
moments, one thing that will be written in stone. THE BRIDE WILL BE LATE!
Timing! This holds true for the delivery of the proofs. Be a day early and
you are a hero. Be a day late and you will be judged a lot tougher because
expectations were not met. Be a day late and the mother-in-law drags out
her 10X Schneider Loupe. Better than yours.... The longer you take, the more
chances of outsider opinions.
>From the website, also, PJ vs Traditional, the wedding Kit, Bridezilla, etc etc.
Copyright, Jacobs Photo/graphics, A&E Photography.
I wish you well,
Al Jacobson
Website: www.aljacobs.com
From: [email protected] (SAcapts2001)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 03 Dec 2002
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments of Weddings
>Film?
>
>These Commandments must be old as well.
One of the quickest growing types of civil suites in Illinois is from digital
photography in Weddings and one time events. This is a mixed bag ranging from
unhappy with quality to malfunctioning storage devices. Wonderful tool, I love
mine, but it just isn't film...yet!.
From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: [Advice] Becoming a pro...
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002
Contrary to some other folks I'd recommend trying photography. If you truly
love it and you're willing to sacrifice for it then you should try and make a go of it.
You're young, you've got years to settle down and worry about your per annum
income. Do what you love now while you can, don't wait until you're too old
to get around.
I knocked around a bit as a photojournalist, went to places I never would
have, met some presidents and some peasants, got into some trouble. Never
regretted a minute of it. And I never made much money either. But I wouldn't
trade the experiences I had. I only wish I had started earlier. Now I
operate a studio and I teach large format photography, I like to say I gave
up photojournalism for honest work...;^)
Live your life as if it matters...
John Emmons
P.S. Remember that Senor Salgado had been earning a comfortable living for
years as an economist long before he started doing his "reportage", who says
you can't be a photographic lawyer...?
...
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002
To: [email protected]
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Washington Post Shoots Film, Mostly
...but that will soon change.
From today's paper, the "Kid's Post" page at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32944-2002Dec9.html
"Pictures by the Numbers
"Tuesday, December 10, 2002; Page C14
"There are 30 staff photographers at The Washington Post. The Post sends
photographers to wherever news is happening. For instance, photographer
Michael Robinson-Chavez is now in Iraq."
...
" Each photographer has $10,000 in camera equipment. About 60,000 rolls of
film are shot at The Post each year. That's 34 miles of film, enough to
stretch halfway around the Beltway"
...
" About 80 percent of the photos are shot on film that is developed at The
Post. It's easier to look through film negatives than to look at digital
thumbnails. But when deadlines are tight, like at a nighttime sporting
event, digital cameras are used and the images transmitted electronically.
Soon, about half the photos will be shot digitally."
Also look at the following articles, also from the "Kid's Post"
"Seeing the Moment"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32945-2002Dec9.html
"'A Good Picture'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32923-2002Dec9.html
--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
From: Alan Browne
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Amatuer to Professional
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002
In most places one doesn't need to have any accreditation to practice as
a photogrpaher, however having credentials is always a plus as a
reference for the clients... would you hire an non-accredited or an
accredited photographer?
In Quebec, to become accredited by the CMPQ: Requirements include
either formal education in photography at the college (CEGEP) or
university levels; OR demonstrate through a portfolio the ability to be
a professional photographer. Three levels of accreditation are given:
-Accredited Photog
-Master Photog
-Photog Emeritus
I imagine that in various countries, provinces and states there are
similar organizations.
If you get an assignement from a newspaper or magazine, they should give
you a letter that you can present to organizers of shows to get press
passes.
There are some semi-scam type operations that (for a few $) send you
nifty looking "PRESS PHOTOG" dog tags, with your photo that are designed
to get you into events ... I don't know if these actaully work and I
recall some people claiming that they don't.
Cheers,
Alan.
bean112 wrote:
> This is just a curiousity question.
> How does an individual become accredited? If someone wanted to start
> shooting film as an independent.
[Ed. note: just an observation on the perils of publishing even a popular photo book!]
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002
From: "Thom Hogan" [email protected]
Subject: re: books and errors
> Thom: When, if ever, will your books be back in print?
Well, after over a year without royalty statements or payment, Tiffen
finally sent me a royalty check for Nikon Field Guide (officially 14
months overdue), but they also let the book go out of print. They
HAVEN'T yet produced a royalty statement for Nikon Flash Guide.
Thus, when the rights automatically revert to me on the Field Guide,
I'll immediately look into having a 3rd edition produced through another
publisher (the manuscript has been done for 12 months now). And the 2nd
Edition of the Flash Guide will be available in eBook form later this
year from my site.
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
www.bythom.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Book Publishing Prices
Bill Rektorik-Contractor wrote:
> I have been watching the group for awhile and replied sparingly. But
> now I have a question.
> By day I do photography for the army, on the weekends I use my
> Hasselblads to do weddings.
>
> Recently I was approached to take some photos of a restored wooden
> sail boat.
> The author will use snap shots that he took of the restoration, but
> wants quality photos of the finished boat.
>
> The photos will be needed for two reasons. The first will be as
> enlargements to hang on the owners wall.
> The second and more important , will be published in a book that the
> owner is writing on the restoration and
> history of the sail boat.
>
> I think I can come up with a fee to charge for the actual
> photography, plus expenses for film, travel etc.
> But I'm not sure how to charge for the publishing rights. A
> photographer friend of mine did a similar job
> and charged a basic fee plus $250.00 for each photo to be published
> in the book, for each printing.
>
> Does this sound like a reasonable approach and should I charge more,
> I assume, if the my photo is used for the cover ?
No, not a good approach in this case. You'll most likely price
yourself out of the job. Does the restorer already have a contract
with a publisher or is he doing this all on spec? I'll assume the
latter.
Since this isn't going to be a major circulation book, this is how I
would price the job: charge time, materials, and expenses as you've
done. Charge for any prints the boat restorer or anyone else wants,
etc. This price would include First Publication Rights of any of the
shots, but not any additional press runs, if any. Negotiate a flat fee
for any additional press runs, but wait until there is an additional
run to do that. Also, negotiate a use fee for just the front and/or
rear cover of the book, if any shots are used, of course, to be paid
only at the time of publication, if book ever is.
If there is a book contract, then contact the publisher, directly, and
negotiate the photography with them.
You're not going to make as much money with my recommendations, but you
will get published, and most times that will lead to more work,
particularly, if the book publisher likes your work. You may get
other, similar types of photography, too, because of this job.
Also, get full photo credits.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 3/7/2003
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Question for the Pro's out there
Professional photographer edict #1:
Never give a client a bad photograph, either alone or mixed with good
photographs, to look at or to choose from. The client will only remember
you for the bad photographs.
It's like first impressions. You get a first impression of someone and then
it turns out that the person really isn't as bad as you thought. But your
first impression always looms in your mind.
Again, never give a client anything other than first class good photographs.
If by chance none of your photographs were what you think as good, it is
better to tell the client that you had an accident in the darkroom and the
film was ruined and that you would like to re-shoot. This time explaining
that the parents need to either keep the kids under control or... the shoot
is off.
Which brings me to the next edict:
Never shoot other peoples kids in a set-up situation where the kids parents
are expecting you to be the greatest photographer ever (always the case.)
It's like never being an actor, making a movie with kids or an animal. You
always lose.
I think you stepped in it and now you have to clean your shoes...
:-)
Jim
...
From: Tom Just Olsen [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 3/9/2003
To: [email protected] Cc:
Subject: [HUG] WHEN A NON PRO TRIES TO DO A PRO'S JOB
Fellas (to those of you who are strictly amateurs)
I guess we all have been invited to shoot at some friends wedding,
exhibition cat, dog or horse. Or the inevitable 'children'.
Since I have done all the mistakes in the book, I have a few advice:
1)
Make it clear that the negatives are your property regardless of 'how
much they pay'.
2)
Make it clear that it is much more involved cost wise than just 'film &
paper'. Wave your 203FE up under their nose.
3)
Figure out 'what the end product is supposed to be'. A 50 x 60 cm thing
above the mantlepiece? Or 150 Christmas cards 13 x 18 cm.
4)
And what it is going to cost. Don't be shy. Whatever a serious amateur
is going to come up with is always cheaper than what a pro will do it
for. Here is a fair exit from the whole process; they think it 'too
expensive'. Fine, find somebody else. If they then go to a pro
photographer then he will have to show them all the sights to see and
all the potholes to avoid in photography. And the bill. That will
sober them up for the next time...
5)
Be prepared. Rig up your equipment long before the horse, the cat or
the (damned) children are ready. Don't let them wait.
6)
My experience is that 'children' and 'cats' are the most difficult to
shoot of the above mentioned 'items'. At one session with my friends
kids, 'I just gave up'. They were running about crying and in the end
'making faces'. We sat down in the sofa and discussed 'what next do
do'(kill them and then stuff them or what). While the kids settled down
for 'childrens TV'... That turned out to be the right occation; I
possitioned myself besides the TV and shot some extraordinary good shots
of the children looking intensely on TV.
Then cats...
They are notoriously bad listeners and 'will not do what you like them
to do'. Simple things like 'standing up'. A friend of my wife has
several 'race exhibition cats'. She has been a model herself and is a
TV personality here in Norway, so she understands photography quite
well. Thanks God. I have periodically photographed all her cats and we
have an excellent cooperation. When I come she has groomed them and
found a nice 'background' that we can use. We use only natural light to
control that the typical breed charatceristics (Abysiners) are
'exposed'. Come to think of it; she has tought me a lot about both cats
and photography. She tries to manipulate them with 'sounds', like
curling up small pieces of paper in her hand, while I shoot.
I see a lot of 'cat post cards' around. Taken by pros and with
artificial light. Cute they are and a 'man's job' from a photographical
aspect. Real pro work. Mine are far from this.
I have never shot horses 'for the horses sake', but my niece has a horse
and I shot some Confirmation pictures of her, in her national garment,
on her horse. I am afraid of horses, particularly of 12 year old
stallions. Something the horse found out, and whenever I was ready for
'the real shot', he came towards me and the tripod & camera, nodding
it's head, whinning. he wanted the girls present, the mares, my
sister-in-law, my wife, girlfriends etc. for himself, threatening to
stampede me and my equipment to the ground. What a session...
We gave it up and my niece changed to riding gear and took the stallion
for a ride out on the fields. With my EOS3 and a 200 mm/2,8 I took some
excellent shots of the equipage in full gallop, - the pictures we
finally used. The picture has turned out to be a lot more telling of
her (and the horse's) personality than a 'stand still' portrait
arangement.
Some of my best portraits I have taken have not been 'on assignment' at
all, but their significance has turned out later.
Like one beautiful August afternoon a few years back when out on a
stroll I met one of my neighbour's sons on his brand new Honda 750 cc
motor bike. We had a nice chat and just by coincidence and in a very
relaxed atmosfare I took some very good shots of him with my 500C/M and
the 80 mm/2,8 with him proudly sitting across his bike with a soft
afternoon light that exhibited his youthful tan skin and white smile. A
series of portraits I am particularly proud of. Some weeks later he
crashed and was killed...
You can imagine, this was a big tragedy here in our neighborhood with
litterally hundreds in the funeral. I gave the relatives many versions
of these photographs, never charging anything of course. His younger
brother has one version in a 60 x 60 cm blow-up in is room. 'Its like he
is with me all the time', he says...
I can't think of anything else that has given my photographical 'hobby'
greater significance.
Tom of Oslo
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: National Geographic Photos
Gord writes:
> It really is personal marketing: present the image you want
> the target audience to see. For the general public, chances are
> that you want to present as "excellent". So don't show the
> duds. I don't think it does your case any good to even _mention_
> the awful shots that were thrown out.
>
In the world of newspaper and magazine photography, it's been my experience
that more often than not, if you show pictures you don't like to art
directors or editors, they will invariably pick those over your favorites.
Something like a corollary to Murphy's Law. Only show what you want seen or
published as representative of your best work. Of course, you can also learn
from art directors and editors if they regularly ask for things you didn't
shoot or didn't show them. And when you are shooting for publication you do
need to offer some variety, such as a selection of horizontal and vertical
shots (unless you know you are shooting for a cover, which needs to be
vertical).
I wear both the hats of photographer and editor and can appreciate the issues
on both sides. It's a matter of trying to reconcile the photographer's vision
at the scene with preconceived notions and editorial vision back in the
office. If the photographer, art director and editor are in sync, very little
film will be wasted. If not, the trash can may overflow, and it still won't
be right.
William Sampson
http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html
From: [email protected] (CVBreard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: 23 Mar 2003
Subject: Re: Is there much money in the Photography field?
>Even if your the best
>photographer in the world you likely going to do a nose dive if you don't
>have
>a good business education or experience. >>
Agree.
I was pleased to be invited to speak at the Professional Aerial Photographers
Association (aka "PAPA") annual meeting in Dallas last month on "Sales and
Marketing".
My message - the Aerial Photography Business isn't about flying or photography
- it's about RUNNING A SMALL BUSINESS...
...and "If You Ain't Got Customers, You Ain't Got S---!"
From: Joe Morris [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Large-format cameras get respect in the _Wall Street Journal_
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003
The Wednesday (3/26/03) issue of the _Wall Street Journal_ has on
page D8 an article on Joel Meyerowitz, who made a bit of history
on his own by lugging a view camera around rather unlikely places such
as Afganistan after the American bombardment, and all over the
Ground Zero site.
A beautiful -- and haunting -- and quite sad -- example of his work
is the shot of the remains of the World Trade Center on the opening
page of the web site:
http://www.21stcenturyphotoresources.org
The article notes that in the early days after 9/11 he wasn't able
to get official permission to be at the WTC site but talked his
way past the cops -- and the strangeness of a view camera apparently
made all the people who could have ejected him so curious that he
was able to stay. He had the same experience in Afganistan.
It's a good article (about 30 column inches) and nicely describes
some of the characteristics of view cameras that attract photographers
to them.
Joe Morris
From: "sympatic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Large-format cameras get respect in the _Wall Street Journal_
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003
> The Wednesday (3/26/03) issue of the _Wall Street Journal_ has on
> page D8 an article on Joel Meyerowitz, who made a bit of history
> on his own by lugging a view camera around rather unlikely places such
> as Afganistan after the American bombardment, and all over the
> Ground Zero site.
Joel Meyerowitz has on been doing the WTC site - Simon Norfolk has been
doing LF work in Afghanistan, anmd soon, probably Baghdad and Basra
http://www.photonet.org.uk/programme/citibank/citibank03/norfolk.html
http://www.creval.it/gallerie_en/firenze/afghanistan.htm
BTW - it's a nice little article.
tim
From: NickC [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I will almost certainly buy another digital camera
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003
...
Bob, I've long had the feeling which I have been reluctant to openly
express, that digital systems will lead to photojournalist's becoming
obsolete. Already, tyro's with digicams have put a dent into photographing
weddings. Many hobbyists that I am aware of, have taken on second jobs to
digitally photograph weddings, reducing cost competition with full time
pro's. With digicams and software continually being improved, images will
become much easier to capture and rework to commercially accepted levels.
Many have already acknowledged, with a digicam, tons of pictures may be
taken and near tons discarded in favor of keeping a few. Yes, even a tyros
at the races may someday, as a common occurrence, have pictures in the news
or magazines. Skill will be replaced by automation. After all, time is
money and money is more important than skill. :)
Nick
From: Alan Browne [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The film v digital debate
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003
Jim Davis wrote:
> Alan Browne [email protected] wrote/replied to:
>
>
>>The few that have to 'blast away' only do so during peak action in
>>sports, wildlife and a few other areas. Stop propagating myths.
>
> These areas you mention are a very large part of photography. Perhaps
> you should tell me about those areas you're talking about. I never
> said all Pros blast away, but many do of course. The fact is a Pro
> takes many more photos than he needs to, many insurance photos, many
> to catch a certain look. If you can see something special and take one
> shot and capture it, you're either lying or a fool.
Direct quote from your posting:
"Here's the thing. A pro with motor drive will take a bunch of series
of shots to get one good one. He might have a whole roll where he'll
have one keeper if he's lucky."
This was in a context of "how pro's" work. I've been out with over a
dozen pros, including two wildlife and several sports, and I have yet to
see one shoot like rambo with a machine gun.
In looking at their slides afterwards, they were not selecting keepers,
they were selecting "fit" for an intended use. And yes, they all had a
few bloopers, emphasis on 'few'. I've "browsed" storage sheets of one
pro on a light table and he has thousands of great bird/wildlife, nature
and other photography catalogued. All are "keepers". (He also makes
carousel's of "mistake" shots that he uses in the courses that he gives,
and he keeps the true "bloopers" in boxes in a small closet). The
"keepers" far outnumber the bloopers. The "mistake" shots are usually
technique: bird in flight wing position, backlighting exposure errors,
focus, framing, etc. Again, the "keepers" outnumber the mistake shots
by a wide margin.
Another example for you. A National Geographic article has 10 - 20
photos in it. The average number of frames shot by NG photogs on an
assignement is 29,000 or 800 rolls. This would seem to support your
claim in spades. But again it is the editorial selection that culls the
10 - 20 images for the article. The other approx. 29,000 images are not
"thrown away" they are archived by the NG for future possible use. eg:
they are "kept". They are keepers fit for the NG archives.
I'll add that in my definition, a pro is someone who puts food on his
table and pays the mortgage with his professional work. Working like a
professional means working to achieve what is required to fulfill a
need, usuaully contractual. To succeed in this, a planned, deliberate
approach must be used. In the few cases where blasting away with a
motor drive is useful, so be it. But it ain't that often.
And a pro with a digital is the same: he will plan and go after the
images he needs. With digital he might be a little more open to
shooting quicker. But that just leaves more editing and selecting to
do. And that selection is normally done back at the office. A pro has
another constraint called time. He must achieve what he needs in a
limited time period. And contrary to your ill-founded opinion, he does
not help himself by blasting away during that time. He helps himself by
planning ahead of time, so that during the period in question he can
focus on the breadwinners.
Cheers,
Alan.
From: [email protected] (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 20 May 2003
Subject: 'I Can't Believe Its Not Digital'... Not
Was quickly thumbing through a Pop Photo (most recent I believe) as the library
I was in was closing up. In it I just saw an EOS 1Ds ad. Its a close up of a
woman harlequin (reminds me a little of Meryl Streep). To me it looks "TOTALLY
DIGITAL" - lack of detail/subtlety in the iris of the eyes, which themselves
look soft (not unsharp, just lacking in fine detail and possibly a trace of
artefacting in the blondish/light brown eyelashes). And this is a close up head
shot w/ lots of skin and color, where digital is supposed to excell. Is it just
me, or do I expect too much? I've seen lack of (fine) detail in the finer
details of flowers in Dennis Reggie's 1Ds wedding pictures at much larger size
(closer to 16x20" or so) but at the semi-double truck? of this ad I expected to
see more quality. Surely the FinePix S2 studio headshot images I've seen
exceded the quality of this 1Ds ad. And the ironic thing is that I believe the
ad says something like "can you believe this is digital?" (or something
similar)!
Some may say that I am getting on the case of digital, but as noted above, I've
seen better digital than this before. Thereis no knowing what resolution the
image was taken at (unless it lists it in the ad somewhere I didn't have time
to look through the fine print) but one could assume that Canon would have had
the photographer use the highest resolution as I believe the point of the ad
was "gee, ain't this digital life-like (and/or film-like) which would call for
the highest resolutio of this (supposed) high resolution digi camera. I like
Canon but this ad would make me want to save up for a Nikon if I ever went
digital. Thank goodness, regardless of brand, there's still film ;-).
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
From: [email protected] (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 07 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: cantos Re: 8x10???
I toss in a couple of observations I've made. I started out with 35mm and shot
that for about 15 years. Then, I took a vacation and shot 35mm and 645 side by
side on the same scenes. Afterwards, the 35mm went into my closet for about
two years. Two years ago, I bought a used Calumet 45NX. Suddenly, I wasn't as
happy with 645. Funny thing though, I find I will very often pass up most shots
after carefully looking them over with the 4x5. Often I come back without any
shots at all. My "keeper rate" for 4x5 is about 33%, which is about ten times
what I get with 35mm. BUT, the funny thing is, I still get about the same
number of images I am please with, no matter what format I shoot. It's just
that a well exposed 4x5 tranny is so much more satisfying than a 35mm one.
Kent in SD
From: "sympatic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 8x10???
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003
I know someone like Nick Nixon or Jock Sturges will easily shoot at least
25-30 or more sheets of 8x10 a day when working.
As for keepers, I remember Elliott Erwitt saying he was happy if he got two
or three real keepers a year. In fact if you look at the careers most really
well known photographers, look at what you would say are their really great
photographs - the ones that last and we remember, and that average seems to
fit pretty well. The few exceptions to that rule are the photographers whose
work is trully unique.
In the end, the cost of film and processing has nothing to do with it. You
shoot as much or as little as you need to.
From: "Jeff Novick" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: cantos Re: 8x10???
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003
That's a good quote you give, especially the last paragraph. It falls into
line with my own thinking about opportunities, timing, and, ultimately, my
own vision. In fact, I have to believe that the major limiting factor of
getting great images is my own vision.
A well known teacher here in the Bay Area once told me he thought a
photographer had maybe 6 great images in a lifetime. I can see how some
people might agree with this. Some are much more analytical than others and
can take apart images in many ways. Hopefully, most of us have more than 6!
Jeff
"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
>
> yes, that is a good point. One useful thing to do is to analysize one's
> own "bad" photos for trends. I have done so in the past, esp. with some
> batches of 35mm and MF slides. Sometimes there is a technical problem that
> crops up (bad light trap in a MF back) that is easily fixed once detected.
> A flash unit may be over a stop "optimistic" in its ratings and need to be
> downrated. The compositional problems are more problematic; sometimes they
> are necessary compromises due to lack of time to return to the site or get
> there at optimal (sunrise/sunset) times. The differences between a
> documentary or site recorded shot and a great photo can be subtle ;-)
>
> You take some shots, knowing you are taking some risks, but if you don't
> play, you can't win. I think this sort of experimentation and risk taking
> with shots is an integral part of expanding as a photographer. So 100%
> keepers or a similar high rate may be an indication of too little risk
> taking or experimentation too ;-)
>
> Cantos:
>
> Recently, I have been taking what I consider to be "tree portraits" of
> some gnarly old trees with broken limbs around a local lake I walkabout.
> The idea that this is a portrait of the tree, rather than a nature shot of
> trees, has changed my approach to these subjects. Like a human portrait, I
> am also doing more focusing on parts of the subject (cf. gnarly hands ;-).
>
> In an odd way, my efforts to combine portraiture with landscape is a
> result of trying to figure out, from some photos, what I was trying to
> capture in a surprisingly large number of shots. In similar ways, I have
> found a series of other projects coming out of my photowork, including a
> study of reflections in architecture and so on.
>
> Misrach calls his series of projects "cantos", having started out with the
> four elements in his early work (air, water, fire, earth(works) - air was
> the shuttle landing in the desert, water was a flooded area of desert
> etc.).
>
> These "cantos" are open ended projects, again something I like as I often
> return, as with the seasons, to a past project and interest and extend or
> rework it. Part of the trick is to recognize, from your own photos, a new
> area of interest or approach or attitude, which then gets strengthened by
> being recognized and developed. You can also identify areas you would like
> to explore (e.g., low light work, macrophotography, crystal photography)
> but which mandate some specialized equipment.
>
> So I think that one should have a reasonable number of "bad" shots from
> experimentation, and some shots on the chance that you will get lucky
> (e.g., birds taking flight), but should have minimized the losses from
> technical issues thru an on-going awareness of what is causing problems.
>
> But each type of photography (35mm, MF, LF..) seems to have a different
> keeper ratio, though the number of great shots per day of photographing
> seems to be remarkably constant in each case, though the nature of those
> shots (e.g., action for 35mm) may differ significantly. This suggests to
> me that it may be the photographer's vision or photo opportunities rather
> than the number of photos shot which is controlling the keeper ratio? ;-)
>
> regards bobm
From: Mxsmanic [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad on a budget?
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003
Stefan Patric writes:
> I'm a firm believer in getting what one NEEDS, and not
> what one WANTS.
Then you are a professional, not an amateur. The professional buys what
he needs, because he can't afford less, and he can't afford more, and
his actions are dictated by what he can afford. The amateur buys what
he wants, within the limits of his financial resources; by definition,
he never _needs_ anything.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
From: [email protected] (Duncan Ross)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 11 Jul 2003
Subject: Re: Follow up to: Kodak Lab Closing--Film Use Is spread out more...
...
>That is true of lower end, cheap digital cameras. I hate the output from a
>lot of these cameras, yet a lot of their owners think they are great - but
>what about DSLRs? The Canon EOS-10D and EOS-1DS prove that digital cameras
>can produce quite fantastic results - good enough for professional use.
>
>Chris.
I agree Chris, but not everyone can write off the cost of their equipment
against expenses. I have virtually zero money and run through about twenty
films a year - an outlay of o80 / year incl. processing. There is no digital
alternative to the cameras I use for that sort of money. The people buying
digital that I personally know used to shoot a hell of a lot less film than
that, maybe four rolls a year. They only ever print their digital shots on PC
inkjet printers and only ever seem to take awful holiday pictures, invariably
with the built-in flash. These are the people that are 'seeing the benefits of
digital'.
Don't get me wrong, I can genuinely see several attractive features of digital
- we use digital cameras at work and I borrow them whenever I need to
photograph something for eBay. In comparison my old Kiev is agonisingly slow to
use, however the results are much better than the Sony at work and it cost a
tenth of the price. The fact is when I see pictures from years back I forget
about the hassle of setting up the camera, the cost of processing etc. All I
see is the final image, and that's why I use film! :^)
[Ed. note: some good questions to have answers ready for?...]
From: Ronald Stichter [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: choosing a wedding photographer
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003
Louis,
Here are a few questions that I field every time a bride
walks into my studio. Often I give them questions that they
should be asking as well as answer the ones the bring in.As
someone once said "An informed client, is probably my client ! "
Of course you will look at samples and get an idea about
the photographer from his work. Be very critical. Know exactly
what you like and that _this_ photographer can deliver it .
1) What are the qualifications of the photographer ?
This can take many forms and don't be fooled by the
old "I'm a certified master of photography" . So what ?
Certifications are rarely checked and can be phony. How many
weddings does he photograph per year ? Can he give you recent
references (less than two years old ) ?
2) Ask if _he_ will be your photographer ?
Many studio's hire stringers whom you might not meet
prior to your wedding day. At this point you are forced to accept
the photographer whether you like him or not. And these are part
time photographers, not full time professionals .
3) Will he be bringing an assistant ?
Assistants are often _very_ helpful in keeping everyone
informed and taking care of "details". My assistant is my wife !
4) Will he be using the best in equipment ?
Will he be bringing backgrounds, lights and props ? Does
he use medium format equipment. What's medium format ? They're
camera systems that provide negatives that are larger, (between 3
and 9X) than a 35mm . Personally, I use medium format equipment
for 99% of my work. While advances in film technology have
allowed 35mm to produce acceptable photographs, it is still not
the choice of most professionals. Medium format negatives provide
better tonal quality and the option to have the negative
retouched if needed. And they also allow the photographer to
change between black and white and color films.
5) Does he have backup equipment ?
Anyone worth paying for had better have backup equipment.
And it had better be ready to go at a moments notice, not sitting
out in a hot car without a roll of film loaded or a flash
attached.
6) Does he have a backup photographer ?
We all have those emergencies that pop up at the worst
times.
7) Is he insured ?
Minimum should be $1,000,000 in liability and ask for a
certificate to give the caterer as proof.
8) Does he have a studio available ?
Mines come in handy when we had planned a outdoor photo
shoot of a wedding between the church and the reception and it
rained ! Rain happens ! Also, having a studio lends to the
credibility as a photographer who is working out of his apartment
isn't very permanent.
9) Are there time limits on his coverage and if so what are the
over-time fees ?
We offer unlimited time coverage but many studios are "on
the clock" so to speak. Actually I don't understand why as you
can only photograph one wedding per day and it should have all of
your attention.
10) Are there over-shooting fees ?
Huh ? Sounds weird,right ? Some photographer will
contract for a specific number of frames of film and that is all
they will shoot . The theory is that if you really want the
photo, you'll pay for it. My theory is if you ask, you want it
and you'll buy it !
11) Are there traveling fees ?
Some photographers will bill you for travel fees and
tolls incurred at your wedding. Pretty petty, eh ?
12) Who do they have process and print your negatives ?
If they're a pro, they'll use a pro lab. WalMart is OK
for your vacation pictures but certainly not for your wedding !
Pro labs use much higher tolerances on quality and also
use different materials than their amateur counterparts.
13) How long are the negatives kept for after the wedding
album(s) have been delivered ?
We offer the majority of our negatives to our brides on
their 3RD anniversary. If the bride doesn't want the negative (
and this hasn't happened yet ! ) then I would pick through them
and save the ones I like and dispose of the rest.
Of course we use some for promotional material and may
never actually sell a specific original to the bride. But we do
have a copy negative made and include that with a print as this
usually represents a photograph that we are proud of .
14) Are there warranties on the albums and prints ?
As far as I know most albums have a replacement warranty
that last the natural life of the bride and groom.
Prints as well usually have a replacement warranty that
covers premature fading and discoloration under normal
circumstances.
15) Can you preview a copy of the contract ?
It's best to be clear on expectations of all parties. I
would recommend that you try to take the contract home for
further reading , but I'm not certain the photographer would let
you.
16) If over 4 hours will the photographers be needing meals in
the reception facility ?
posted by public.net for [email protected]
----------------------------------
Most reception facilities provide for this, but watch for
it anyway. I once covered a wedding in a relatively posh facility
where they charged the bride and groom over $150 for our dinners.
If I had known that the spaghetti that I was fed was going to
cost that much, I would have saved her a bundle !
17) How will the photographer be dressed ?
Tuxedos are always good . Most photographers wear them.
some don't. Don't leave anything to chance !
18) What is the delivery schedule for your album ?
8 weeks from the time that your order is placed is
reasonable. Do consider that time of year that you put the order
in. Christmas season is usually quite busy.
19) When can you expect your proofs ? And will they be delivered
in an album ?
Usually 2-3 weeks after a wedding and we put all of ours
in an album so that they are protected from fingerprints, damage
and loss.
20) Methods of payment.
This seems relatively straight forward but actually most
brides don't ask about the details. We offer payment plans to
help our brides and grooms get what they want on a budget that
they can afford.
Hope this helped,
Ronald
From: Stefan Patric [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad on a budget?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003
EDGY01 wrote:
> The secret is to NOT become a professional photographer; get a
> lucrative job, and retire young, and then buy all the expensive
> lenses you could ever want.
> (That's what I did). Pros these days sensibly rent the odd ball
> stuff so they don't have a high overhead.
I was commenting to another pro the other day, that the only people
who can really afford the best equipment are amateurs with good
paying jobs.
--
Stefan Patric
[email protected]
Subject: Re: over-supply of photogs?
From: Karen Nakamura [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003
PCportinc [email protected] wrote:
> which cities have too many photogs?
> major cities like NYC, LA, Boston, would have plenty, maybe too many in fact.
> With American jobs going over seas, especially in the IT industry, I see more
> people getting into photography.
> Would the quantity of photogs reduce quality? will experienced
> photogs have to charge less as a result?
According to the last PPA report (2003) which just came in, the annual
income of photographers adjusted for inflation is actually decreasing.
Not a good thing.
Call it the Walmart-ization of photography. Don't quit your day-job,
photography is a wonderful weekend hobby, but a terrible business to
get into right now.
Karen Nakamura
--
Karen Nakamura
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/
From: "Dennis O'Connor" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Joe Pro - Photographer
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003
http://www.dougsalin.com/
For those with aspirations of being a pro, here is an excellent site to
learn about being Joe Pro.... Read the picture of the month captions...
From: Bonnie Schlangen [[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 2/11/2004
To: Monaghan, Robert
Subject: Article and Content Suggestion for the Medium Format Site
ColorVision, Inc delivers affordable tools and software solutions for color management that ensure consistent,
accurate color from monitor to printer for both professionals and consumers in today's digital darkroom.
Your site is a great digital photography resource. I found your site while doing research for our client, ColorVision.
After review of your site, I believe this information may be of interest to your site's visitors. We are asking that you
create a link to ColorVision from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/semipro.html with the following information:
Category: Turning Semi-Pro in Photography/ Related Links
Title: ColorVision - Digital Enhancement through Color Management
URL: http://www.colorvision.com
Description: Affordable solutions for color management that assure consistent, accurate, reliable
color for digital photographers and graphic designers.
Additionally, I have attached an article entitled "Ensuring Color Accuracy For Your Digital Photos"
for your review, believing that it too will hold value for your web site audience. Please feel free
to post the article at your convenience if you find its content appropriate. We ask that the embedded
links to ColorVision remain linked in the document.
If you're not the right person for this message, please let me know who is so I can discuss it with
him/her. If you are the appropriate contact, please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
Regards,
[digital brand logo]
Bonnie Schlangen
4499 Route 27
Kingston, NJ 08528
(609) 688-8558
www.digitalbrandexpressions.com
On behalf of ColorVision (www.colorvision.com)
End of Page
Q. How much do the top professional photographers
invest in camera gear? [added 12/2000]